header-logo header-logo

16 August 2007 / Gerard Forlin
Issue: 7286 / Categories: Opinion , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

Worth the wait?

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll