What is it?

The Corporate Manslaughter Act and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 comes into force on April 6. The law introduces an offence of corporate manslaughter in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and corporate homicide in Scotland.

There is a popular perception that it applies solely to large companies; but the new law will actually cover a much wider range of organisations, including the construction industry, agriculture, privately run care services, public utilities and employer's organisations. It will also extend under certain circumstances to NHS bodies, local authorities, certain charities, parts of the voluntary sector, government departments, trade unions, the police and prison services and even HM Revenue and Customs.

Why do we need it?

There had been concern that large companies were escaping prosecution after management failures that cost the lives of many innocent people. The pressure for reform began to grow after the deaths of 187 people caused by the capsizing of the Herald of Free Enterprise in March 1987. Now 21 years later, after a series of highly publicised disasters - including the 1987 King's Cross fire in which 31 people died, the 1988 Piper Alpha oil platform disaster when 167 died and the 1999 Paddington rail crash where 31 people lost their lives - senior managers will find themselves liable to be found guilty of corporate manslaughter where there has been a gross breach in a relevant duty of care.

What happened before?

What was known as the "identification principle" meant that the more complex and multilayered the organisation, the more difficult it was to find an individual within the company who could be seen as the "directing mind". This meant that for an organisation to be liable there had to be a senior individual within it who was personally identified as directly linked with the operations that led to the tragedy. The effect was that while an individual train driver, for example, could find him or herself liable for manslaughter, senior management who were aware of shortcomings within their safety systems could escape prosecution. Typically, in smaller companies it was much easier to make the link between management failure and the failings that led to death.

Who will be liable under the Act?

The Act does not target individuals because the focus is on senior management failure. There are a number of factors to be considered. The organisation, whether it be a local authority or a rail operator, must owe what is deemed a relevant duty of care to the victim. Whether such a duty is actually owed is for the judge to decide. The next stage is to decide whether there has been a breach in that duty and this must have come about because of the way in which activities were managed or organised by senior managers. Crucially, the Act is targeting systemic failure, what was described in the inquiry after the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster as the "culture of sloppiness". Where a corporate culture exists that allows dangerous practices to go unchallenged and a death or deaths result, then organisations will find themselves liable.

What is gross breach of duty?

This is where the conduct or the failings that led to the breach falls far below what can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances. Deciding what is "gross" will be up to the jury but there are a number of factors to be taken into account. The Act is closely linked with existing health and safety legislation and the jury will take this into account, as well as wider issues such as the culture and accepted practices within an organisation. They will look at whether policies and systems led to, encouraged or tolerated behaviour that created unsafe systems, which in turn led to fatalities.

What sort of duties might be breached?

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• PM to sue Icesave to get savers' money
• Former UBS lawyer pays $6.5m to settle probe
• Test case over non-dom told to pay UK taxes