Posted By Robert K Lewis These are gross negligence manslaughter convictions and the hue and cry concerning deaths at work is not likely to be very satisfied. The proposed CK bill would do nothing to change the strength of the outcry especially as fines only would be imposed. The progress seems to be stalled unless Government or Lords give way on deaths in custody - I do not understand the government's obstinancy on this. Bob

Posted By Adrian Watson Bob, Why is the Lords being obstinate? Both the police and prison services are corporate bodies, so there is no reason why this law should not apply to them as they have a responsibility not to kill people who they have in detention. Is it because they are being detained? Regards Adrian

Posted By Raymond Rapp The root cause of many tragic accidents is that penalties for health and safety offences are far too lenient. Many companies blatantly ignore statutory regulations and are only penalised when there is a serious incident. Too little - too late. The Lords amendment was surprising considering the purpose of the CM Bill was to bring to account large organisations corporate misfeasance. Although the government included unincorporated bodies into the 2006 Bill, the original proposal from the Law Commission did not. Deaths in custody for example, how does one identify serious h&s failings by a 'senior manager'? Presumably the duty sergeant will be considered as such. Nonsense! It is not often I agree with the government, but the Lords amendment clearly shows how little they understand the concept of a statute corporate manslaughter law. Just my humble opinion though... Ray

Posted By Raymond Rapp John Not really sure what your point is or why you are quoting from my previous post. I do not read anything in your post that is fundamentally different from my view, albeit from a slightly different perspective. If I have got it wrong I am sure you will be happy to explain. Ray

Posted By Adrian Watson John, You little cynic, you! I rather think this one is due to the government not wanting to be held accountable for deaths in custody, rather that the Lords accepting little white envelopes or a bottle or two. Not only is the Lords wanting this amendment but so are many other organisations such as amnesty, justice and many prison charities. Regards Adrian

Posted By steve e ashton OK I'll amplify my original post... Many large and/or complex organisation use a 'Value of Preventing a Fatality' (VPF) to calculate the cost/benefit ratio of any new or proposed preventative measures. The idea is that by applying a quantitative measure, it should be possible to demonstrate compliance with the 'so far as is reasonably practicable' criterion. VPFs are used to justify (or decline) road improvement programs, rail investment projects, nuclear sites etc. The figures I have seen generally come in at around £1-1.3 million. Here, a death has apparently cost a company £164k (fines plus costs) plus internal legal costs - say another £50k - plus 21 months jail absence from work of two managers (call that another £100k. A total of just £314k So - if this company is looking to invest in safety - how much should it spend to prevent each possible fatality? If they adopt the 'normal' VPF figure of £1m plus, it appears they will have gone way beyond 'sfairp' - and they could be spending too much on safety! Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting a life (any life) should be seen as being worth only £314k. BUT what figure should we adopt - what is the (monetary) Value of preventing a fatality? And how can we persuade the court system they've got it woefully undercosted in the penalties they impose? If the commonly used value of around £1million was adopted - this equates to around twenty year in jail (£50k pa for average manager?). Or jail plus fines to balance... I know I'm being way too simplistic, but the penalties imposed for very serious breaches of H&S - that result in pleas of guilty to manslaughter - are (IMHO) risible. Steve

Posted By Sean Fraser Whilst not disagreeing with the above 2 posts, regarding CBA and VPF, there is an even more fundamental error in the application of these costs. In purely financial terms, there is an assumption that these costs (possibly averaged but generally representative) are what it would cost if there was no effort to protect life. However, in economic terms, there are a number of hidden factors that would make such calculations far more difficult - loss of customer goodwill for example. So these costs could only ever be estimated. But the error is in believing that the base calculation - the cost of human life - can be used to address the "as far as is reasonably practicable" test. But this test only applies to where the overall risk has already been reduced, not whether or not action is financially justifiable. As I understand it, the precept is that human life if invaluable - a failure to protect it is (almost certainly) criminally negligent and should automatically be subject to prosecution. Only by demonstrating how remote the probability was, or by having circumstances so unusual that it really was unconsidered when establishing the task, could the accused demonstrate that spending vast sums of money was considered at the time to have no viable benefit. In the end though, the court will decide - after all, a life has now been lost. So to try and apply a fiscal instrument to the calculation to justify inaction is likely to fail when tested. Unless someone out there knows different under case law . . .?

Posted By Bob Shillabeer How about this for a reason why it is not appropriate to make the proposed legislation fit. There is a fundimental differenc e between the ordinarty working man and a convicted prisoner. Set the corporate manslaughter bill to fit the killing of inocent people who are killed whilst at work and then set a new law of killing someone while in prison. It could be that simple.

Posted By Adrian Watson Ray, The same arguement holds for corporate manslaughter, so why have a seperate charge? Regards Adrian

Posted By Raymond Rapp Adrian Good point. I wish I had a simple answer for that one too! The truth is, that corporate manslaughter was conceived through a common law process that makes little sense to the layman and was also totally ineffective against MNEs. However, the concept had arrived and politicians promised a 'punishment that would fit the crime' (J. Prescott) in order to satisfy the public condemnation of corporate failures. The result was an ill conceived attempt to codify the current common law offence of corporate manslaughter to a statute offence. Moreover, in order to appease various stakeholders the government has ended up with the worst of all options. The other options being, to utilise a dormant or repealed section of HSWA and introduce CM as a specific offence under the Act. Alternatively, to provide a specific duty for Directors, which would not necessarily have to include a fatality, but a serious breach leading to an adverse outcome. Still I welcome the new Bill if only to keep senior managers 'on their toes', until that is, the 'penny drops'. Ray