Examination of Witnesses (Questions 520
- 521)
MONDAY 21 NOVEMBER 2005
RT HON
SIR IGOR
JUDGE
Q520 Gwyn Prosser: We are told that
consideration is being given to review the law on murder and on
homicide. What is the risk, if this Bill became enacted, of offences
such as involuntary homicide tying the hands of the legislators
who are trying to make reform to the law on homicide and on murder?
Sir Igor Judge: I think the answer
to that question is this: that, however one may wish the law of
homicide to be looked at by Parliament, it is not going to happen
in terms of producing an Act of Parliament for some time. This
is on the stocks. I myself would not think that you would want
to hold it up pending some possible eventual review. By the time
some eventual review takes place, Parliament will know how this
Act is working. Speaking for myself, I would be astonished if
the Act failed to work reasonably as Parliament would like it
to, and if anybody then thought that the review of the law of
homicide should have any impact on it at all. You might have the
impact in the context of what I call individual gross negligence
manslaughter but not in terms of the corporation's responsibility.
Q521 Gwyn Prosser: Would any potential
conflict or muddying of the water be removed by changing the definition
in this Bill from corporate manslaughter to corporate killing?
Sir Igor Judge: You would be setting
off a lot of argument that would enable lawyers to argue that
if the word "killing" was being used for this Act, it
demonstrated that the word "killing" was the appropriate
word to use for any form of criminal death, and that of course
would affect the whole debate about murder and manslaughter. If
I may say so, you might be causing a lot of very powerful arguments
to be developed.
Gwyn Prosser: It would make the water
even muddier.
Chairman: Do not go there! Sir Igor,
thank you very much indeed. You have been very, very helpful.
| 
