header-logo header-logo

05 July 2007 / Bilal Rawat
Issue: 7280 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Good intentions

Does the long-awaited corporate manslaughter legislation represent a lost opportunity? asks Bilal Rawat

Alongside the ritual demise of British hopes at Wimbledon, the summer of 2006 was marked by predictions that an offence of corporate manslaughter would be enacted by April 2007. Sadly, these proved premature. A commitment to introduce legislation on corporate killing first appeared in the Labour manifesto of 1997. With the departure of Tony Blair still fresh in our minds, it has yet to become law. There remains cautious optimism that this measure will be implemented before the end of the year.

A NEW STATUTORY OFFENCE

Currently, a company can only be convicted of the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter if an officer is first found guilty of the same offence. That person must be identified as a “directing mind” of the company—someone so senior as to embody the organisation. This is the identification principle. In prosecutions involving large organisations with complex management structures it has proved difficult to identify a directing mind to establish liability. The seven successful prosecutions since

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll