All I can say from working in HM Prisons is that Crown Immunity was removed from the prison estate three or four years ago

Things to note about Crown Immunity are: 1. It does not apply to Corporate Manslaughter charges which can be brought either against the department/agency itself or relevant Secretary of State 2. It does not protect individuals, just the organisation. 3. It does not protect against civil claims just criminal charges. It is a throw back to the legal idea that the Crown is inviolate and I am not convinced that the Crown Censure procedure is a good one. On the other hand what is the point of multimillion pound fines if the tax payer picks up the bill any way?

That the Crown is immune from criminal liability is generally considered axiomatic, while constructed upon ancient liabilities of the Monarch it is now implicit that Government departments and Crown bodies are immune from criminal liability unless that immunity is removed or diminished by an Act of Parliament (Crown Immunity from Criminal Liability in English Law, Sunkin M, Public Law, 2003, P1). As for the corporate Manslaughter and corporate homicide Act 2007, the crown are only exempt from liability in certain conditions. Section 3 of the Act excludes specific matters from the scope of the offence in Section 1 with the result that Corporate Manslaughter does not apply to certain Public and Government functions where there exists a broader question of public policy, particularly where there are already other forms of accountability. The exemptions fall into two broad types, comprehensive, and partial exemptions . Where a comprehensive exemption exists the offence of Corporate Manslaughter does not apply in respect of any Relevant Duty of Care that an organisation may otherwise owe. Section 3 (2) specifically provides that an organisation will not be liable for a breach of any Relevant Duty of Care owed in respect of things done in the exercise of exclusive public functions, unless the organisation owes a Relevant Duty of care in its capacity of employer or occupier of premises. A wide variety of operational military activities will be exclusively a public function within the terms of Section 3 (2) and so excused from the offence however, that exemption does not relate to the organisations duties as employer, or occupier of premises . This exemption pertains to the conduct, preparation and support of military operations, as well as other perilous and volatile situations comprising of peacekeeping operations, and operations dealing with terrorism or serious public disorder. Section 3 (3) provides that an organisation will not be liable in respect of any Relevant Duty of Care owed in the connection of performing Statutory inspections, such as inspections of prisons. Section 3 (4) applies exemptions to resolutions of public policy taken by Public Authorities. This includes strategic funding decisions and other matters involving competing public interests, but does not exempt decisions about how resources were managed. Section 5 provides that any duty of care owed by a public authority in respect to Policing and law enforcement will not be a Relevant Duty of Care in limited circumstances, particularly operations in which an authorities officers or employees come under attack or threat of attack, or where the authorities in question are preparing for or supporting such operations, or where it is carrying out training with respect to such operations. Where there exists a partial exemption, the offence of corporate Manslaughter does not apply unless the death relates to an organisations responsibility as employer or occupier of premises. These include 1) the emergency services including fire and rescue authorities, relevant NHS bodies, the ambulance service, child protection functions or probation activities 2) care and supervision orders made under part 4 of the ‘Children’s Act 1989’, or a local authorities duty to investigate whether to take action to protect a child’s welfare 3) the exercise by a local probation board or other authority made under the ‘Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000’ 4) functions carried out by the Government using prerogative powers, such as acting in a civil emergency 5) functions by their nature that require Statutory Authority . However, a partial exemption does not exempt any activity simply because a Statute provides an organisation with the authority to carry it out. Nor does it exempt any activity because it requires a licence. The activity must be of a sort that cannot be independently performed by a private body, such as licensing drugs . I have just completed a Masters of Law degree in HSE law, and my dissertation topic was corporate manslaughter if anyone requires a copy PM me.

Congratulations David - I assume that was with Salford Law School? By coincidence my dissertation was also based on the new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 back in 2008.

I can assure you from my time in HSE that the MOD takes a Crown Censure very, very seriously. It involves everyone in the management chain from the actual accident, generally being a fatality, to the top of the MOD hierarchy being held to account and evaluating what went wrong, or why prescribed procedures were not followed. It demands any required remedial measures to be implemented across the whole of MOD, and assurances of such to be provided. It has a lasting effect within the MOD and is just as effective as a prosecution of a private company where the penalty, normally a fine, is so entirely dependent upon the actual comprehension and understanding of the magistrates or judge on that day.

Mssy - Yes, dealt with CPIG in my previous role with HMPS. Mainly were ex fire service staff from memory. Were very good in my opinion of stating the very obvious.