Medical manslaughter and corporate liability

Legal Studies ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 316-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Childs
Keyword(s):  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Complex Pattern ◽  
Medical Negligence ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Hospital Deaths ◽  
The Law ◽  
Corporate Manslaughter ◽  
Corporate Liability

Recent years have seen a rise in the number of manslaughter prosecutions following deaths caused by improper medical treatment. Such prosecutions of individual doctors are problematic because, in many cases, a complex pattern of failures has contributed to the death. One alternative approach would be that of pursuing corporate manslaughter prosecutions against hospital trusts, but current law makes such prosecutions difficult. The Law Commission's proposed offence of corporate killing could, if adopted, form the basis of prosecutions following some hospital deaths. The article considers arguments for and against the use of criminal law in response to deaths caused by medical negligence.

4. Strict, vicarious and corporate liability

2020 ◽  
pp. 139-183
Author(s):  
Janet Loveless ◽  
Mischa Allen ◽  
Caroline Derry
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Serious Crime ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Corporate Manslaughter ◽  
Corporate Liability

This chapter examines the concept of strict, vicarious and corporate liability in the context of criminal law. It discusses the implications of strict liability for actus reus and mens rea, evaluates arguments for and against strict liability, and considers the treatment of strict liability under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The chapter explains the principle of corporate liability, highlights the problems in prosecuting a corporation for a serious crime and explains/critiques the key provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (CMCHA) 2007 in Great Britain. It also provides several examples of relevant cases and analyses the bases of court decision in each of them.

4. Strict, vicarious and corporate liability

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Loveless ◽  
Mischa Allen ◽  
Caroline Derry
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Serious Crime ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Corporate Manslaughter ◽  
Corporate Liability

This chapter examines the concept of strict, vicarious and corporate liability in the context of criminal law. It discusses the implications of strict liability for actus reus and mens rea, evaluates arguments for and against strict liability, and considers the treatment of strict liability under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The chapter explains the principle of corporate liability, highlights the problems in prosecuting a corporation for a serious crime and explains the key provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (CMCHA) 2007 in Great Britain. It also provides several examples of relevant cases and analyses the bases of court decision in each of them.

scholarly journals “If You Buy a Cup, Why Would You Not Use It?” Marital Rape: The Acceptable Face of Gender Based Violence

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 321-325
Author(s):  
Fareda Banda
Keyword(s):  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Law School ◽  
First Year ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Marital Rape ◽  
Gender Based Violence ◽  
On Demand ◽  
The Law ◽  
Gender Based

There are cases that one never forgets. DPP v. Morgan is one of those for me. I read it as an eighteen-year-old in my first year of law school. It was in the criminal law class where we were being taught about rape. The facts left me shocked and outraged. Morgan went out drinking with his friends. At the end of the night, he invited the friends back to his house. He told them that they could have sex with his wife and added that they should not worry if she appeared to resist, because she liked it that way. The friends duly came over and helped themselves to his wife as per his instructions. Morgan also forced her to have sex with him despite her protestations. She experienced injuries which necessitated medical treatment. His friends were convicted of rape, but he was convicted of indecent assault. This seemed strange. Had they all not forced her to have sex with them despite her clearly expressed refusal? Why was he charged with a lesser crime? The reason was simple: he was her husband. Under the law as it then operated in England, there was no recognition of marital rape. Her consent to lifelong sex on demand, even if it was against her will, was taken as part of the contract of marriage. The words “I do” spoken at the time of the marriage, were taken to mean free access for the husband for as long as they both lived, or until the marriage was legally dissolved or a formal separation was in place.

scholarly journals Charlie Gard: in defence of the law

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (7) ◽  
pp. 476-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliana Close ◽  
Lindy Willmott ◽  
Benjamin P White
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Independent State ◽  
Current Role ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Life Sustaining Treatment ◽  
The Law ◽  
Difficult Cases

Much of the commentary in the wake of the Charlie Gard litigation was aimed at apparent shortcomings of the law. These include concerns about the perceived inability of the law to consider resourcing issues, the vagueness of the best interests test and the delays and costs of having disputes about potentially life-sustaining medical treatment resolved by the courts. These concerns are perennial ones that arise in response to difficult cases. Despite their persistence, we argue that many of these criticisms are unfounded. The first part of this paper sets out the basic legal framework that operates when parents seek potentially life-sustaining treatment that doctors believe is against a child’s best interests, and describes the criticisms of that framework. The second part of the paper suggests an alternative approach that would give decision-making power to parents, and remove doctors’ ability to unilaterally withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment that they regard is futile. This proposal is grounded in several values that we argue should guide these regulatory choices. We also contend that the best interests test is justifiable and since the courts show no sign of departing from it, the focus should be on how to better elucidate the underlying values driving decisions. We discuss the advantages of our proposed approach and how it would address some of the criticisms aimed at the law. Finally, we defend the current role that the judiciary plays, as an independent state-sanctioned process with a precedent-setting function.

BRITISH BARRISTERS FOR NO-FAULT

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 470-470
Author(s):  
Student
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Negligence ◽  
The World ◽  
Fault Compensation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Law Commission

After years of inertia there are now almost daily developments on the issue of compensating those injured by medical treatment. Probably the most important recent development has been the support expressed for no fault compensation by eminent lawyers at the annual bar conference . . . Around the world—and particularly in the United States—lawyers have been one of the main forces obstructing the introduction of such schemes. The support expressed for introducing such a no fault scheme by the chairman of the Law Commission and the judge who made the first£lm award in a case of medical negligence must thus greatly increase the pressure on the government to act.

25. Liability of corporations

2020 ◽  
pp. 770-800
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Corporate Manslaughter ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
Personal Liability

This chapter discusses the ways in which organizations and their members might be held liable in criminal law. It covers personal liability of individuals within an organization; vicarious liability; corporate liability: by breaching a statutory duty imposed on the organization, by committing strict liability offences, by being liable for the acts of individuals under the identification doctrine, and the specific statutory liability of organizations for homicide under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007; and liability of unincorporated associations.

Formalism and Pragmatism in Criminal Procedure

2018 ◽  
pp. 182-219
Author(s):  
Vincent Chiao
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Process Analysis ◽  
Capabilities Approach ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Criminal Charges ◽  
Subjective Utility ◽  
The Law ◽  
Procedural Rights

Many jurisdictions define a special procedural regime for people facing “criminal” charges; hence, whether a case is considered “civil” or “criminal” can have important consequences for access to a wide array of procedural rights. Conventionally, the distinction between “civil” and “criminal” law is drawn by reference to whether the law in question is intended to be punitive. This chapter explores an alternative approach. Drawing upon the capabilities approach literature, this chapter develops an account of the allocation of procedural rights on the basis of whether the law in question has the potential to impair effective access to central capability. The appeal of the capabilities approach is contrasted to Kolber’s proposal to index punishment by reference to subjective utility or preference. Although appeal to capabilities is novel in this context, well-known features of due process analysis in American constitutional law are broadly consistent with a capabilities-based approach to rights allocation.

scholarly journals THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR CORPORATE LIABILITY FOR HOMICIDE: THE EXPERIENCE IN NIGERIA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Khairat Oluwakemi Akanbi
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
The Public ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Corporate Body ◽  
Corporate Manslaughter ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Corporate Liability

In recent times, corporate homicide has become an increasingly global phenomenon. These global incidences make it imperative to have a legal framework for holding corporations liable for deaths either of employees or members of the public that occur as a result of their activities. The challenge however is in applying the traditional criminal law elements of actus reas and mens rea to a corporation, since the criminal law had developed with the natural person in mind. The aim of this paper is to examine the legal framework for corporate liability for homicide sharing the experience in Nigeria and the UK. The paper discusses the application of criminal law elements of actus reas and mens rea to a corporate body in order to justify corporate liability for homicide. It also examines the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 of the UK which is the first legislation on corporate homicide together with theposition in Nigeria. The paper finds that the legal framework in Nigeria is inadequate to secure corporate liability for homicide. The UK provisions can thus serve as a useful model in this regard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document