header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 August 2007 / Gerard Forlin
Issue: 7286 / Categories: Opinion , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

Worth the wait?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Ten years of wrangling have failed to settle the corporate manslaughter debate, says Gerard Forlin

After more than a decade of wrangling, bartering, debate and delay, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (CMCHA 2007) finally received Royal Assent on 26 July 2007. It will be brought into force by secondary legislation on 6 April 2008.

It has not previously been possible to pierce the corporate veil and successfully “convict” a large- or medium-sized organisation. With the advent of CMCHA 2007, it is highly likely that such organisations will now be realistically in the telescopic sights of the prosecution agencies after April 2008. In theory, CMCHA 2007 will not change the law regarding the prosecution of individuals (who are increasingly being imprisoned following conviction for manslaughter). The reality is, however, that as police investigations increase, more individuals will be caught up in the process, resulting in more arrests and more convictions.

CMCHA 2007 permits the jury to review the corporate culture inside an organisation and its general attitude to safety enforcement and control

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll