125. Memorandum submitted by Mike and
Martina Pansonly
After giving all matters arising due consideration,
this is my considered input into the office of HM Home Secretary
Charles Clark MP.
As this Act will replace the 1952 decision of
Lord Denning MR "Deciding Mind" principle, then it's
good Law. The identification principle has for far too long, been
an excellent defence for companies seeking to totally avoid their
liabilities in Law. Example: P & O European Ferries Ltd, who
completely escaped legal sanction despite the unlawful deaths
of 188 men, women and children that cold, damp Friday night the
6th March 1987, when the MV Herald of Free Enterprise turned over
outside Zeebrugge harbour, due to the negligent but widespread
practice by Ferry Captains of leaving the dock, with the bow doors
open (Something I saw many times with my own eyes).
The one item clearly missing from this bill,
is that it does not state what Directors and Senior Managers could
and should do now to show compliance, with the Act. That is, there
is no mention of the Duties of those decision-makers within UK
plc. (My question being, will this statutory requirement for Directors
Duties come later in the secondary regulations?)
Finally, the Corporate Manslaughter Bill should
be equally applicable to all "Crown Bodies" and their
agents, for in a time of increasing privatisation, many private
companies are now service providers to what are essentially Crown
Bodies. (Example: The Prison Service, Police Constabularies through
the UK and the Ministry of Defence. IE. Group 4 Security, Serco
and Ryder plc, to name but three.)
May I, on behalf of my late Father-in-Law, Mr
David Stanford, (who was killed at work by the driver of a Large
Crawler Crane negligently dropping a skip full of wet concrete
onto him on Friday morning the 15 January 1988, on HM Featherstone
Prison extension site, managed by Taylor-Woodrow Construction
plc.) thank you all, to all of you in the Home Office, for your
combined efforts in getting this socially desirable piece of Legislation
enrolled onto the statute book, for if it were in place back in
1988, it could have been used by the Police to prosecute Mr Stanford's
employer, instead of him totally escaping his liabilities in Law
and laughing about it in the Coroners Court, while Mr Stanford's
widow and her three daughters were beside themselves with distress,
over the violent and unnecessary death of their Father and Mrs
Stanford's husband, that fateful Friday morning, his last day
on that site.
You maybe interested to know that Mrs Stanford
waited ten (10) years for the final insurance settlement . . .
and even then they only paid her £32,000, which was then
used by Mrs Stanford to pay off all of her accumulated debts,
due to having little or no income, since the manslaughter of her
husband David Stanford on Friday 15th January 1988.
Don't let anyone ever tell you that the public
don't take any notice of your actions, we do and I for one am
very grateful for all of your efforts and those of the Home Secretary.
So a great big "thank you" to Mr Charles
Clark and his staff.
14 June 2005
|