Rank: Super forum user
|
Whilst I am not going to comment on the content of the case I am concerned that this charge relates to an incident that occurred in July 2010. Why does this take so long to come to court? For the act to gain credibility the CPS needs to get up to speed.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
M
This is markedly quicker than most prosecutions following fatalities.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I notice its only a "small firm" so relatively easy to prove.
CPS seem to be scared of tackling anyone of any significance.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
walker wrote:I notice its only a "small firm" so relatively easy to prove.
That seems like a very throw away comment. How would you know how complex the case has been to investigate and to put together a water tight case if you haven't been involved in it?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Claire, I think walker was alluding to the fact that it is easier to satisfy the tests inherent in the CMA with small organisations. This is true and especially the senior management test which is required for a successful prosecution. We still wait for the day when large organisations (MNEs) are charged with CM, but don't hold your breath.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RayRapp wrote:Claire, I think walker was alluding to the fact that it is easier to satisfy the tests inherent in the CMA with small organisations. This is true and especially the senior management test which is required for a successful prosecution. We still wait for the day when large organisations (MNEs) are charged with CM, but don't hold your breath.
Thanks Ray,
I hope most people here realised that too
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
M, you haven’t mentioned the case in question, which would help to inform the discussion. But, some cases do take some considerable time to come to trial for any number of different reasons, and not necessarily the 'fault' of the CPS.
I am not quite so convinced as others that the ‘test’ is likely to be significantly different for different ‘sizes’ of employer, although as always, I am happy to be wrong (or at least have a differing opinion).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Perhaps the issue is that the legislation was meant to be to deal with the difficulty of prosecuting large companies and yet it seems to be used against small business where the chain of direction / command / mens rea (if feeling learned / posh) is obvious!
I think gathering the evidence against larger business will be an interesting exercise under FFI as it will generally involve an enormous fishing trip as " culture" is so wide a term and it is not like looking for a missing 6 monthly chain ticket
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Peter I think it was "beaten" into me "not learnt" but for my sins I did manage a Latin O level so I could probably have worked it out without the beating - it is quite sad how much useless information one manages to retain and yet still manage to forget to buy what you were sent to the Supermarket for ...... either age or not enough beatings to influence the behaviour I suppose.
Are we still allowed corporal punishment as an influence under modern behavioural safety management systems? Problem I guess is that could be both reward or threat?
Suppose I had better try to finish this really tedious survey ...........
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thank you for the link.
As I understand it the 'directing mind' test isn't (so) relevant to CMCHA as it was to CLCM. The inability to establish the Mens Rea was the 'get out of jail free card' for larger organisations clause' and this was a major driving force behind CMCHA; wasn't it?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
canopener wrote:Thank you for the link.
As I understand it the 'directing mind' test isn't (so) relevant to CMCHA as it was to CLCM. The inability to establish the Mens Rea was the 'get out of jail free card' for larger organisations clause' and this was a major driving force behind CMCHA; wasn't it?
Yes, that's what I understood.
And it still remains untested.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The CMA does in effect aggregate the mens rea or controlling mind test via the senior management test. Originally the White Paper introducing corporate manslaughter only referred to a 'management failure'. For whatever reason the senior management test was introduced to the Act and could yet prove to be a major hurdle in prosecuting large organisations.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.