Ray Could the previous government have been grandstanding??? Shock Horror!!!!! Bob

Just because there has been a fatality at work, does not automatically result in a prosecution of corporate manslaughter/ homicide. For the CPS to bring a case of corporate manslaughter / homicide, they have to show that there was a gross breach of duty care by the body corporate owed to the deceased, which was the causal link and lead directly to the fatality. They also, have to consider the two test of whether: 1. There is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of successful conviction; 2.A prosecution is in the public interest. The offence of corporate manslaughter / homicide is on the body corporate, not individuals, if however, it became clear during proceedings etc that an individual manager was responsible for the fatality, then they would subsequently be prosecuted under S 36. The cause of fatalities at work could have various of reasons, which may have been preventable, such as contributory negligence, a car crash, heart attack, etc etc

A Kurdziel, the CPS has had one successful case, albeit all the boxes had been ticked with Cotswold Geotechnics. Does the lack of prosecutions show that the CPS have neither the will or the tool to prosecute companies? We know the CMA is a complex and arguably poorly drafted piece of legislation. I find it difficult to believe there are not suitable cases where there have been significant management failings. In fact, I recall reading in SHP about a (mining) company who have had several individual fatalities over the last few years, a contender if there ever was one.

Considering the resources which went into drafting and passing the Act, it appears to be a shameful waste of time and money! Back in 2007/08 everyone one was discussing the Bill and Act, now a few years later very few can even bother to make a comment.

do you mean something like this: http://www.iosh.co.uk/ne...?i=N0008341332316197994A

So great minds think alike-idiots seldom differ! Not much of an answer.

Yes, I noticed it. Just checked out his bio and no mention of anything health and safety...the plot thickens.

Surely a member of HM Government would not tell lies

It's probably because he practised as a health and safety law barrister.

I've not seen it used in that context before, but I guess he considered himself a practitioner in heath and safety law.

Our Dom's Polytechnic Diploma apparently made him one! You must be doing something wrong.