Posted By Safe System As soon as anyone hears the outcome please post here! Not sure if this will be a quick 1 day conviction though...

Posted By Safe System The CPS.. they state that: Mr XXXXX will appear at Stroud Magistrates' Court on 17 June. He faces charges both as an individual and on behalf of the company. Am i confused?!

Posted By Raymond Rapp You're confused! Not much hope for the rest us then :) Can't find any reference to the CPS case you are referring to, have you a link?

Posted By clairel I think Raymonds point was that it's not the first coprorate manslaughter charge as that has already been and gone to court.

Posted By Rodger Alan Ker I sometimes despair at some of the postings made on this forum. For those who have been out of the country for the past months, below is the statement from the CPS website released on 23/04/2009. It was also widely reported in the press and appeared in the May editions of both the SHP and Safety Management magazines. It was also widely discussed on the forum, leading to the new AUG 6. The Crown Prosecution Service has authorised a charge of Corporate Manslaughter against Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd in relation to the death of Alexander Wright on 5th September 2008. Mr Wright, who was employed as a junior geologist, was taking soil samples from inside a pit which had been excavated as part of a site survey when the sides of the pit collapsed crushing him. Peter Eaton, a director of the company has been charged with gross negligence manslaughter and with an offence contrary to Section 37, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Under the Act, an organisation is guilty of corporate manslaughter if the way in which its activities are managed or organised causes a death and amounts to a gross breach of a duty of care to the person who died. A substantial part of the breach must have been in the way activities were organised by senior management. Mr Eaton will appear at Stroud Magistrates' Court on 17th June. He faces charges both as an individual and on behalf of the company.

Posted By IOSH Moderator Just a little point of clarification - AUG6 has been gestating for many months (certainly back to mid 2008). Some additional explanation is in the pipeline Jane

Posted By Swis Safe System asked a simple and straight forward question. What’s wrong with you guys. The first hearing is today. Wait and see what happens next.

Posted By peter gotch Don't expect the case to be concluded next week or any time soon. Legal team haven't had the chance to respond to any Friskie schedule even if it has already been disclosed. P

Posted By f5refresh It will be the first time CM Act has been used in court, but not the first time corporate manaslughter has been used. CM Act is a new Act making it easier to prosecute individuals under s37 of HASAWA.

Posted By f5refresh You have just repeated exactly what I said but using different words. Who said the CMA has anything to do with the HASAWA?? If a company is found guilty under CMA - makes it far easier to prosecute individuals of that company under s37!

Posted By Colin Reeves http://www.shponline.co....ame=news&article_id=8942

Posted By Tuesday Hanley-Jones In the first application of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, the Crown Prosecution Service authorised a charge of corporate manslaughter against Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd. Peter Eaton, a director of the company has been charged with gross negligence manslaughter and with an offence contrary to Section 37, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd has also been charged with failing to discharge a duty contrary to Section 33, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Mr Eaton will appear at Stroud Magistrates' Court on 17 June. He faces charges both as an individual and on behalf of the company. Case committed to Bristol Crown Court for hearing on the 23rd June 09. Not been able to find anaything on the outcome yet...

Posted By Raymond Rapp In recent correspondence with a lawyer in this particular field he commented that the outcome of this particular case will have no bearing on more high profile and complex cases in the future. Alluding to the fact that all the 'right boxes' have ticked.