No corporate manslaughter cases have yet come to court — despite the
fact that the Act has been in place for almost a year — because the
Police are being over-meticulous in their approach in order to
guarantee conviction.
This is the view of four health and safety law experts, who took part
in the ‘In Court: Live’ Q&A session at the IOSH Conference in
Liverpool yesterday (18 March). Asked from the floor how the situation
was shaping up since the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide
Act came into force last April, partner in Osborn Abas Hunt, Madeline
Abas, said: “It seems that the Police won’t jump into a prosecution
until they are sure they have a very strong case. They want to get
secure convictions under their belt. The problem is that the Police
will be hesitant before they start charging people.”
Nathan Peacey, partner in Bond Pearce LLP and who regularly acts on
behalf of the HSE, added that the Police also appear to be struggling
with how to investigate corporate manslaughter cases. He explained: “In
cases I’ve seen, they seem to be arresting everyone, and interviewing
people at all levels under PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984)! The thing is, why arrest individuals when what needs to be
proved is the case against the company?”
SHP columnist and senior associate at Pinsent Masons, Kevin Bridges,
said the reason for this over-reaction coupled with hesitancy is
simple: “The Police are just not very good at investigating workplace
accidents!” He went on: “When you ask them why they are arresting
individuals, they look at you blankly because arresting and
interviewing individuals is what they are used to doing!”
Steffan Groch, partner and head of regulatory at DWF LLP, summed it up
as follows: “Why was this new Act brought in? Because it was difficult
under the old one to fine large companies. So now the Police want to
make sure they have a strong case against large companies, and think
they will be criticised for taking action against smaller companies
because they could have done that under the old law.”
The lawyers also predicted that the vague definition of “senior
management” in the Act is going to be one of the biggest problems in
deciding who to prosecute, and that this lack of clarity will be a boon
for the legal profession. Said Madeline Abas: “Who is going to be seen
as part of ‘senior management’ for the purposes of the Act? The
definition is hopeless. This will be a playground for lawyers like us
when it all starts coming to court!”
To see the full transcript of the hour-long In Court: Live session, go to our INTERFACE section.
