What are you regarding as the intent of the message? I thought the intent of the legislation was that it would enable prosecution of cases where the company as a whole was responsible, but there was no single individual responsible. That situation would lead to cases of large fines for companies, but more minor penalties to individuals (ie, exactly what you have highlighted). I don't think there was ever an intent that individuals become scapegoats for corporate action (or inaction). I saw no intention that individuals be punished as if they were the controlling mind, but rather that companies be punished where there was no controlling mind. In my view, the application of Corporate Manslaughter has not lived up to what was promised, but not for the reason you identify, rather for the fact that the prosecutions have generally been of tiny companies where the previous legislation could have been applied. The Baldwins case is a step towards larger companies, but the real supposed targets of the legislation still seem untouched.

The CMA was first suggested by the Law Commission's report in 1996 on Involuntary Manslaughter (Corporate Killing) which was a response to failure of the common law corporate manslaughter in bringing large organisations to account for systemic h&s failures. Only small one-man-band type companies were successfully prosecuted for the common law corporate manslaughter offence. Since the disasters in 1980's and 90's many organisations' h&s management systems have been overhauled mainly as a result of legislation. So the type of management failures seen in the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster are unlikely to be repeated today. It could also be argued the codified CMA was 10-20 years too late. The original concept behind the CMA was to ensure large organisations could now be held to account because the 'controlling mind' principle no longer applied. However the CMA still requires a senior management failure must be identified for a conviction. The reality is most senior managers and large organisations are still protected by the 'corporate veil'. There is no individual liability with the CMA and therefore only unlimited fines can be given against the organisation. However individuals can still be prosecuted for gross negligent manslaughter and/or pursuant to HSWA.