A Study on the Corporate Manslaughter Bill

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 253-277
Author(s):  
Hyoungbe Jun
Author(s):  
Meg Russell ◽  
Daniel Gover

This chapter explores how government backbench parliamentarians in both chambers at Westminster influence the content of government legislation and the dynamics of politics. Government backbenchers are often thought to be Westminster’s most influential policy actors, operating through the ‘intraparty mode’. As summarized here, governments have recently become less able to rely on their votes, thanks to declining party cohesion. Yet governments are rarely defeated as a result of rebellious votes. This chapter analyses government backbenchers’ amendments proposed to the 12 case study bills—some of which served purposes other than immediate policy change—and their role as ‘pivotal voters’ in resolving legislative disputes with other (particularly opposition) actors. It also emphasizes their influence on legislation before it is introduced, and the importance of ‘anticipated reactions’. For example, ministers introduced the Corporate Manslaughter Bill only reluctantly, following backbench pressure. Backbenchers hence have subtle, and often hidden, influence in the legislative process.


2007 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Griffin

The objective of this article is to analyse critically the proposed new statutory offence of corporate manslaughter. The article considers the content of the proposed legislation in depth and seeks to determine whether it offers a radical alternative to the common law position. Although the intention of the proposed legislation is to remove restrictive legal obstacles associated with the prosecution of corporate manslaughter cases, the article raises serious doubts in relation to whether the proposed legislation will, in fact, achieve its goal.


BMJ ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 336 (7647) ◽  
pp. 741.1-741 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Dyer

2015 ◽  
pp. 97-112
Author(s):  
Anne Eyre ◽  
Pam Dix

This chapter describes how a significant part of Disaster Action's mission has been to help create a health and safety climate in which disasters are less likely to occur. The focus on corporate responsibility has underpinned this intention. The degree to which Maurice de Rohan personally, and Disaster Action as a whole, succeeded in influencing government thinking is reflected in the remarks made by the then Home Secretary John Reid when he introduced the second reading of the Corporate Manslaughter Bill in the House of Commons on October 10, 2006. Getting to that point in 2006 had been a long, committed, and hard road for Disaster Action. The chapter then looks at Disaster Action's proposal for radical changes in the criminal justice system concerning the treatment of possible corporate crimes of violence. It also considers the establishment of the Centre for Corporate Accountability (CCA), which is a not-for-profit human rights organisation concerned with the promotion of worker and public safety.


2020 ◽  
pp. 391-408
Author(s):  
Paul Almond

This chapter argues that the contribution of criminalization to better health and safety in workplaces has been limited by certain contextual features of this regulatory method. It focuses on the role of criminal law in the health and safety legislation and the corporate manslaughter offence. In particular, this chapter argues that criminal law interventions are gravitationally oriented towards individualized notions of fault, capacity, choice, and responsibility. Once the liability enquiry is structured in this highly personalized way, the regulatory capacities of the criminal law to secure effective and enduring structural change is limited. Thus, it remains an open question whether the criminal law can accommodate approaches to responsibility that are more attuned to structures, cultures, and organizational norms.


2020 ◽  
pp. 139-183
Author(s):  
Janet Loveless ◽  
Mischa Allen ◽  
Caroline Derry

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document