Thanks Ray One to watch.

Definitely a very interesting case and one I am sure watched with anticipation by other companies, watched by legal professionals and also by HSE professionals alike. Sounds like confidence is present in whatever facts will be presented by the courts and by looking at three people being considered for gross negligence some good information may be present. I think the initial Cotswold Geotechnics did not allow for a judgement to be made as everyone would have liked to give a direction of the courts view and this one will be interesting but like all things we will have to wait until after the case to hear about the facts and potential causes as these persons still may be acquitted.

But this is still a relatively small company which could have quite easily been prosecuted under the gross negligent manslaughter section of the HaSaW Act. It isn't Network Rail (for example) Better than the earlier prosecution and getting there. I understand that there are a number of CM prosecutions in the pipeline... Alan

Correct, there is no corporate manslaughter provision pursuant to HSWA, neither is it a common law offence but a statute offence courtesy of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. Whilst the accused is not a large organisation, nevertheless the required tests in the Act will have to be proved by the prosecution, unlike the Cotswold Geotechnics case where all the boxes were ticked due largely to the size of the company.

No worries Alan, I thought I had missed something. Ray, while I accept that CORPORATE Manslaughter now comes under CMCHA, rather than the previous common law offence of CORPORATE manslaughter, I suggest that the offence of GROSS NEGLIGENCE manslaughter (i.e. for the prosecution of an individual) still exists under common law. Sorry for the use of Caps but the only way to add emphasis - can we have formatting please so we can use bold and/or underlines?

Phil/Ray Perhaps you can confirm that my interpretation of the charges and their implications is correct? Lion Steel is being prosecuted under HSAWA 1974 Sections 2 & 33 and Corporate Manslaughter Act The 3 directors are being charged with HSAWA 1974 Section 37 and Gross Negligence Manslaughter Now as I understand it under the HSAWA the Enforcing Authority has to prove that a breach of the act took place and that the accussed was responsible for that breach. Burden of proof being "Beyond All Reasonable Doubt". Once these facts are proved/established the onus of proving that they have done what is practicable or reasonably practicable to discharge their duty is on the ACCUSSED? Their burdon of proof being "on a balance of probabilities". Under CM & GNM I believe the Enforcing Authority (prosecution) must prove their case "Beyond All Reasonable Doubt" If my interpretation is right then is it not going to be utterly confusing trying to bring convictions under HSAWA legislation at the same time, in the same courtroom as CMCHA legislation? As I said earlier it will be interesting but I suspect it will be a long time before the real trial starts and I would be surprised if the initial charges are still the same when the real trial begins. Take Care

Fletcher, not easy questions to provide definitive answers...I'll let Phil answer this one!

Thanks Ray, I was not aware that gross negligent manslaughter had been abolished. How can a common law offence be abolished? I must get out more... A

Fletcher, just to fill in some gaps. The CM&CH Act has a provision for health and safety charges to be brought as well as the corporate manslaughter charge. The health and safety charges are in effective secondary charges on the assumption that the accused are not convicted of corporate manslaughter. Some have likened this aspect of the Act to a form of double-jeopardy. Important to note that the CM&CH Act is a separate law distinguishable from HSWA offences. The Act is a hybrid of criminal, common and civil law, using terms such as a duty of care, negligence, etc. All criminal law convictions must be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. However, health and safety offences are normally strict liability offences, where the prosecution does not have to prove there was intent (mens rea) only the breach was carried out by the accused (actus reus). Furthermore, HSWA s40 requires the accused to prove that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done. The only defence to s40 is that of foreseeability - where the incident was not reasonably foreseeable.

Hello To add to previous answers, the case will be prosecuted by the CPS as opposed to the HSE and the burden of proof will be beyond all reasonable doubt. In cases that involve a number of charges with different potential penalties they do tend to deal with them in order of seriousness - thus if there is a conviction for manslaughter, breaches of H&S regs may well be simply 'Left on file'. They would tend to turn to the 'lesser' offences if the more serious charges fell for whatever reason. Each offence does have its own points to prove, definition, and defences.

Fletcher Quite often the LOCAL paper's website is the best source. They will often provide a daily update. It will be a big story for them, and the nationals will often rely on and then summarise their reports. The local papers will also tend to be pretty accurate and unbiased. For the Warwickshire fire case for example the Redditch Advertiser is the best bet.