So far as I'm aware, the law makes no distinction on Nationality - if a crime is committed under English/Scots/NIrish Law, the relevant penalty will be imposed by the Court. Of course, if the Director is not available to pay the fine or serve the sentence...

I'm not a lawyer but as far as I understand the legal aspects UK law has no jurisdiction in other countries. So any company director based outside of the UK is unlikely to face prosecution. However UK based directors and/or other senior managers would be held accountable for any breach of UK law. If you take the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 as an example, it only applies to the UK and territorial waters. Whether senior managers are based abroad would not make any difference in my opinion because there is no individual sanction, only the organisation is prosecuted and if found guilty sanctions applied to that organisation i.e. an unlimited fine.

It not as simple as what some people think. The jurisdiction is where the crime took place not the residence of the accused. There have been cases of British company directors being extradited to the US for crimes they have been held responsible for in the US, even though they have never set foot in that country. So in theory a company director could find themselves being prosecuted under section 37 of Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 even if they have never set foot here if the prosecution could prove that their conniving and consenting took place here for example if they sent an email to a British employee saying something along the lines “Don’t worry about we’ll never get caught. Just get on with it…” Proving that would be difficult but not impossible. And of course Corporate manslaughter only applies to companies not individuals.

I think that DJ has summarised the situation very well. I was not certain if a person (Director) could be extradicted but I have never come across this ever happening.

It's one of the challenges with these multi national companies. My experience with regards to the HSE is that unless they have a clear case of negligence where there is a serious health and safety breach then they will go for the easier target which is the company. As we all know where there is a breach and it's at a companies premises the evidence against the company is already there, whereas once we start to go through who knew/did what it often gets rather murky as we go through the management chain/structure. The HSE would be hard pushed to prosecute a local manager when they probably know the primary responsibility rests with someone further afield, but of course do not have the 'factual' evidence to prove it. Prosecutions consume a lot of resource, and the HSE do not have unlimited resources, unfortunately. Regards

Note since 2000, fines imposed by the courts can be enforced across EU internal boundaries (for any sum greater than £50). This is a direct result of a campaign launched by the TUC and the Construction industry sector. It still does not make going after individual directors and managers any easier. Note in some countries it is not the directors who are held personally accountable but the H&S professionals.

Quote=RayRapp] Really...What countries would that be?

I once asked a Judge the same question about non UK Directors. I was told that they would be summoned to court and it would be highly unlikely for them to attend. In which case if found guilty in their absence it would affect them operating as a director in the UK and would stop them having travel visas to some countries. With a smile the Judge added “wonder how long they would keep their job then”!

I would suggest that is aligned with our own liabilities and responsibilities in that if the said H&S Specialist is clearly at fault then he/she would be held to account. In my understanding that means that if the correct H&S Specialist is appointed and is given clear instructions, e.g., provide accurate and good safety advice, then liability passes to the specialist if the advice is neither accurate and/or good. However, if the advice is accurate and good and the manager/director chooses not to follow it then the liability would remain with the said manager/director, or company as is relevant. The H&S Specialist should be held to account for their advice and I doubt any of us have an issue with it. However, the main issues have generally been with regards to management either not following advice and/or else appointing the wrong people and/or not appointing people etc. This can be taken further when we have overseas directors who hold the power in making decisions. All said and done the Politicians waffle on about things but the law does not yet have fully joined up thinking in this area and part of this has been due to the relatively rapid expansion of the EU and with it's cross border laws/systems playing catch up. Where the HSE would find it very difficult to hold an overseas director to account I would suggest that they would more likely prosecute the company. Regards

RayRapp I think the issue could occur if something this happened: An incident occurs in the UK and the HSE decided to bring a prosecution against a German based director under Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 Section 37. The British court finds the director guilty and issues fine. The director based in Germany challenges this in a German court on the grounds that this is unfair as had the case been heard in Germany he would not have been held responsible but his H&S manager would have taken the blame. At his point the whole thing disappears into a cloud of international legal two and froing as someone one has to decide which law should apply and how, remembering that everybody’s laws are slightly different and different court systems can interpret the same law in different ways. What it boils down to is that the HSE would not be happy spending money trying to bring a prosecution against a foreign director unless they had a strong, open and shut case, which would stand up to scrutiny in a foreign court..

A Kurdziel, the scenario of the director based in Germany is hypothetical and is unlikely occur anyway because for a s37 charge against an individual the body corporate must have committed an offence. With respect, I think you are digging a big hole...

Are you referring to in large companies or all companies? Regards

Walker It's difficult to know the size of some companies let alone the number of employees. That said, I get the impression the fish are getting bigger - see latest CM conviction below copied from the CPS website, the individual's name has been disguised for privacy. Following a trial at Liverpool Crown Court, in January 2015, the trial Judge passed sentence today whilst sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice. Company director P…. M……. was sentenced to nine months in prison suspended for two years and fined £25,000 and Pyranha Mouldings Ltd. were fined £200,000. Pyranha Mouldings Ltd. and P…. M……. were also asked to pay costs of £90,000 between them. Pyranha Mouldings Ltd. guilty of: Corporate Manslaughter, contrary to section 1 of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 Failing to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees pursuant to section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 Failing to ensure the safety of an article designed, manufactured and supplied for use at work pursuant to section 6(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 P…. M…… (Director of Pyranha Mouldings Ltd.) guilty of: Being an officer of a body corporate which committed an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 committed with the consent, connivance or being attributable to the neglect of the office holder, contrary to section 33(1)(a) and s37(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 as amended

Yes I think they are a small outfit, but nonetheless more than a one-man-band type company. We know under the current laws it's difficult to hold to account the big cheeses of industry, protected as they are by the corporate veil. Slightly digressing, my wife recorded an old programme of Judge John Deed circa 2005/6 which I watched last week. The case was a 'corporate manslaughter' trial under the previous common law version. A big cheese was in the dock and despite the defence trying to pass the buck to the site manager and foreman the prosecution was having none of it. In truth the programme was more about the nepotism and cronyism sub-plots than a CM trial. Still, the discussions around the identification doctrine (mens rea) and jurisprudence in general brought back some old memories when cowboys were personally accountable. Shame that is not the case now under the codified CMA.