Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Peter, the charges seem sensible given the circumstances. The 'book' was originally thrown at the proprietor in the Cotwswold Geotechnics case, although most charges were subsequently dropped for spurious reasons. It appears a corporate manslaughter charge has been avoided in this particular case because the 'other director' was not involved in the design or construction of the offending wall.
There was some concern with the Act that a SME with more than one director could be charged with corporate manslaughter and in effect punishing someone who was blameless. This would have been incongruous to justice and the spirit of the act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Further to the good comment "There was some concern with the Act that a SME with more than one director could be charged with corporate manslaughter and in effect punishing someone who was blameless. This would have been incongruous to justice and the spirit of the act"
Its interesting that when it comes to finance and tax areas this type of statement as noted above does not apply as a director cannot easily clam ignorance - or have things changed since I was a director - One rule for money and one rule for day to day people
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ray please can you clarify your point. The charge is against the Company not individual, so I don't see the issue with charging the Company with Corporate Manslaughter - the other Director will be affected by the HASAWA charge anyway so what is the difference. If this logic is applied more widely, any Company with more than one Director can't be charged?
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Mark
Sorry, I thought my post was self-explanatory...however that is correct, the CMA is only concerned with corporate liability and not individual liability. Notwithstanding that, an unlimited fine can be imposed and would normally be higher under the CMA than for an offence under HSWA. Therefore charging an organisation, especially a SME, will affect directors of that company via a large fine. If, as appears to be the case, one director was not directly involved in the offence, then surely it would be unfair to penalise that director, rather prosecute the offending directly individually. The HSWA charge is in effect a backup should the individual prosecution fail and no one is penalised. HSWA charges could be dropped following a successful prosecution for gross negligent manslaughter.
The CMA is codified statute law which was designed to penalise (large) organisations via an unlimited fine; and where applicable shareholders of that company would also suffer. Moreover, the CMA was designed to work within the current legal framework. For instance, s37 offence, director disqualification and gross negligent manslaughter are options for the authorities should they choose. The principle is that the punishment should fit the crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Taking this to it's logically end, if I were a director of a SME, it wouldn't encourage me to want to know what my fellow director is up to, just in case, and take action to stop it (say, for example, doing work they were not cometent to do). I would however still profit from the work being done whether I was interfering or not. I would have thought a better message is that if you as a collective cause a breach you will be dealt with as a collective (as the CMA was designed to do in the first place).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
That is what a s37 offence is designed to prevent - consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.