Recycling firm admits causing manslaughter of employee who died of fatal head injuries (shponline.co.uk)

This company's Companies House records indicates that it employs about 80 people so should be relatively easy to identify the controlling minds.

Once again the CPS has used legislation that was intended to deal with large organisations against a relatively small business.

BUT, also in the dock two of only four Directors, so quite clear that controlling minds had been identified, though seemingly only charged with breaches of HSWA

Also a charge against the "health and safety manager" though I rather doubt that this was their sole role in the company.

P

Out of interest, why have you focussed on the "controlling mind" My understanding is that this legislation deals with prosecuting the "Corporate Body" and its associated failings rather than individual directors etc. The findings just seem to outline how their actions and inaction led to the gross failings of the Corporate Body.

Originally Posted by: FHS

Out of interest, why have you focussed on the "controlling mind" My understanding is that this legislation deals with prosecuting the "Corporate Body" and its associated failings rather than individual directors etc. The findings just seem to outline how their actions and inaction led to the gross failings of the Corporate Body.

I think thats the point Peter and I were both making - as the controling mind was easy to identify coporate manslaughter is not the correct legislation. It was as you rightly say designed for when the corpotae mind was not clear so that a manslaughter charge rather than a H&S charge could be made. But the CPS dont seen to get that.

FHS - Brian sums up exactly my thought process.

If you take a company employing say 1000 or 10,000 it is very difficult to pin a fatality to a member of the Board of Directors.

So, the entire purpose of the Act was about enabling Manslaughter or Culpable Homicide proceedings against such organisations where there is clear evidence that systematic failures that stem from the top lead to death.

But the very first prosecution under this legislation was against a company employing just 4 people and in a scenario where the MD was on site at the time. So, the "controlling mind" was there to be prosecuted personally for Manslaughter - absolutely no need to let them off and instead apply a sledgehammer to the corporate entity who cannot be imprisoned.

Some years ago, the word was that the Crown Office was eager to find a suitable Corporate Culpable Homicide case in Scotland. 

I thought that the conditions were right. Contractor falls through asbestos cement roof (the picture was in the papers) in premises where contractor entry would be under very close supervision for security reasons.

That's as much as I can say on this Forum, other than a comment that the case is taking a VERY long time to reach Court if it ever will.

P 

Is there any financial advantage to prosecution in this way, would they get less money and even more costs if custodial sentence of an individual, opposed to fine to business as a whole?

As the report names the H&S person who has pleaded guilty, will that now affect their IOSH or other safety institute membership?

Yes, Kate the Code of Conduct says to notify IOSH if

(a) convicted of a criminal offence by a Court or (b) charged with a criminal offence contrary to health and safety legislation or (c) adjudged bankrupt or have entered into a formal arrangement with their creditors

Doesn't actually define "health and safety legislation" which might include e.g. being charged with driving whilst unfit. Once convicted paragraph (a) would apply.

The punishment that might be meted out is less clear but, particularly if one looks at Professional ethics in occupational health & safety practice - Middlesex University Research Repository (mdx.ac.uk)

P

Morning Chris

A clarification.

According to the published story the individuals were also prosecuted but under HSWA (pleading guilty), rather than individual manslaughter.

The point here is that we have a relatively small company with 4 Directors, two of whom were close enough to the scene of the crime to be charged for breach of Health and Safety legislation (I assume that the charges allege that they caused breach by the employer via Section 37).

.....and if the evidence was there to support the contention that each was the "controlling mind" responsible for the employer's duty under e.g. Section 2 of HSWA, why would there not be the evidence to prosecute them individually for manslaughter?

Not clear what offence the safety manager referred to in other coverage as simply "manager" was charged with - possibly again link to the employer's duty via Section 36 of HSWA, or perhaps more probably a breach of Section 7 of the Act.

It will all be a little clearer when details of the case are published on the HSE prosecutions database which is supposed to happen 9 weeks after a case is concluded, noting that it appears that neither the company nor three individuals have been sentenced yet.

Can't imprison the company for Corporate Manslaughter and any fine will reflect, inter alia, its turnover. A prison sentence (immediate or suspended) and/or community service is a possibility for any of the individuals but happens rarely. Again any fine would be dependent, inter alia, on the financial circumstances of the defendant.

Health and Safety Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Food Safety and Hygiene Offences, Definitive Guideline (sentencingcouncil.org.uk) 

As you say any fine will go to The Treasury.

P

Edited by user 27 February 2022 11:26:19(UTC)  | Reason: Typo

Originally Posted by: chris42

Thanks Kate & Peter for the response to my post. Sorry I was not clear with my thoughts. Yes, I also believe the money goes back to central Gov from fines. What I intended was are the authorities encouraged to go after the company where they are more likely to get the costs and a larger fine, opposed to the individual. Ie are the authorities doing what their told “puppet” fashion.

Corpoarte Manslaughter is in the hands of the police, they should use the HSE or the LA as their "expert witnesses" as the average police officer is not used to looking at policies, procedures etc. (unless in the fraud team!) Im not sure if the police actualy claim costs. H&S offences can run along side the police prosecution The H&S inspectors have little influence on the CPS in my limited experiance.

Its interesting to not that the CPS decided to take the  Jean Charles de Menezes case under H&S legislation (the HSE would not tuch it) and not as a manslaughter case - but then Corporate Manslaughter did not exisit at that time.