Fatal damage to health
82. A number of witnesses were concerned that the
offence, as currently proposed, would only capture deaths which
are due to one-off incidents.[93]
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, for example,
believed that if the draft Bill were enacted in its present form,
it would be very difficult to show causation through management
failure where fatal damage to health was caused by sustained exposure
to harmful agents or by the contraction of diseases with long
latency.[94]
83. However, other witnesses argued that any difficulties
in achieving successful prosecutions in such cases would not arise
from the drafting of the legislation, but from a lack of resources
for investigating and gathering evidence. The Occupational and
Environmental Health Research Group at the University of Stirling,
for example, submitted:
"In the UK at the moment there remains a
woeful lack of enforcement for offences that cause deaths and
diseases following exposure to harmful substances (such as the
exposure of workers to asbestos or chemicals). Across the UK,
only 1% of deaths resulting from occupational exposures, as opposed
to sudden deaths from injuries, are currently prosecuted as offences.
Any new law on corporate killing will by definition, cover many
of those deaths caused by exposure to harmful substances. This
is not so much a substantive issue of law, but an issue relating
to the gathering of evidence and of the rules and procedures used
in investigations. The government should immediately review those
aspects of evidence gathering and investigation used by the police
and the HSE following deaths related to occupational health causes.
Those aspects of the process are also resource intensive and we
would urge the government to provide resources immediately to
reverse the unacceptable shortfall in occupational health related
prosecutions".[95]
84. We are satisfied that the Bill as currently
drafted covers long-term fatal damage to health as well as deaths
caused by immediate injury. However, we would urge the Government
to ensure that sufficient resources are available and appropriate
procedures in place to make certain that in practice prosecutions
are brought for deaths related to occupational health causes.
Corporate "killing"
85. Some witnesses also criticised the title of the
proposed offence. Rebecca Huxley-Binns and Michael Jefferson,
of Nottingham and Sheffield Law Schools respectively, for example,
argued that manslaughter was an "outdated" term "which
should not be used in a modern system of law".[96]
86. The Law Commission's proposals and the Home Office's
2000 consultation paper used the term "corporate killing"
rather than "corporate manslaughter". The former
expression stemmed from the Law Commission's proposals to replace
the law on involuntary manslaughter in general with crimes of
"reckless killing" and "killing by gross carelessness"
(see para 17).
87. JUSTICE pointed out that following the Law Commission
and Home Office's forthcoming review of the law of murder, the
scope of the common law of "involuntary manslaughter"
might change and the word "manslaughter" might no longer
even be used.[97] However,
on balance, they believed that the introduction of a Corporate
Manslaughter Bill should not wait for the review of the law of
murder, as reform was not certain and, if undertaken, was likely
to be a very lengthy process.[98]
88. We are satisfied that the title of the offence
should be "Corporate Manslaughter" not "Corporate
Killing".
81 Crimes Act 1900 (amended by Australian Capital Territory
Crimes (Industrial Manslaughter) Amendment Act 2003) Back
82
Volume II, Ev 17, 30 and 298 Back
83
National Statistics and Health and Safety Commission, Health
and safety statistics 2004/05, p 5-6 Back
84
Volume III, Q 27 [Mr Griffiths] Back
85
Volume II, Ev 11 Back
86
Volume II, Ev 257 Back
87
Volume II, Ev 11, 55, 263 and 255 Back
88
Volume II, Ev 55 Back
89
Volume III, Q 211 [Mr Smith] and Q 222 [Mr Commins] Back
90
Volume III, Q 222 Back
91
Volume II, Ev 261 and Volume III, Q 519 [Lord Justice Judge] Back
92
Scottish Executive, Corporate Homicide: Expert Group Report,
November 2005, p 16 Back
93
Volume II, Ev 67 Back
94
Volume II, Ev 44 Back
95
Volume II, Ev 11 Back
96
Volume II, Ev 55-56 Back
97
Volume II, Ev 310-311 Back
98
Volume II, Ev 311 Back