Frances Gibb, Legal Editor
We've made some changes
to The Sunday Times
Prosecutions of companies found responsible for deaths – from rail crashes to accidents at work – are expected to rise significantly under laws that took effect yesterday.
Companies that might otherwise have been able to avoid prosecution or conviction will, under the Corporate Manslaughter Act, be more easily brought to justice and will face the prospect of heavy fines. In 2006-07 alone 241 people were injured fatally at work, according to the Crown Prosecution Service. Since 1992 there have been 34 prosecutions and six convictions.
Under the old laws a company could be convicted only if the “directing mind” or senior individual could be identified as responsible for gross failings leading to a death. The new Act enables the collective actions of a company’s management to be examined. Although individuals cannot be jailed, companies face unlimited fines.
The measure, which comes into force after decades of lobbying by campaigning groups, trade unions, relatives“ and others, follows a series of disasters where prosecutions collaped or could not be mounted. They included the deaths of 187 people after the capsizing of the Herald of Free Enterprise in 1987; the King’s Cross Underground fire in the same year (31 deaths); the Piper Alpha oil platform disaster in 1988 (167 deaths); and the Paddington rail crash in 1999 (31 deaths).
Adrian Bever, a partner with the corporate law firm Addleshaw Goddard, said that the measure was the “most significant change in health and safety law for 30 years”. Guy Bastable, a partner at the London solicitor BCL Burton Copeland, said although penalties were only fines, the consequences could be crippling.
The Sentencing Advisory Panel had suggested fines of up to 10 per cent of a company’s annual turnover during the previous three years, he said. “For the largest organisations such a fine could easily be hundreds of millions of pounds.” The Act would also apply to other organisations such as some government departments, police forces, partnerships and trade unions, he said.
Kevin Elliott, regulatory partner at the law firm Eversheds, gave warning that linking fines to turnover would put small firms out of business. “While we agree that fines for significant health and safety breaches should be high enough to reflect the offence, surely the point is not seriously to jeopardise the economic viability of many businesses which are ostensibly very well run, including in the area of health and safety management,” he said. Swingeing fines would also hit the capital pot available for future safety investment.
Insurers said that the Act was a warning to businesses to ensure proper healthy and safety measures. Tom Sheffield, technnical director at Aon, the risk adviser and insurance broker, said: “This serves as a wake-up call to businesses to update their health and safety controls for the wellbeing of their employees and the public.”
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
See the best entries in this year's competition
Your brain is capable of more than you might think...
An interactive preview of the brand new For Your Eyes Only exhibition
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers

Love Sudoku? Play our brand new interactive game: with added functionality and daily prizes

Are you irritable when you return from work? Drained of emotion? You could be suffering from boreout
Prepare for some shock and awe, petrol lovers. Despite the greens trying to wipe it out, the car is about to offer us the most exciting year ever
We've trawled the brochures and websites to find this summer’s best holidays for every taste and budget

Overseas contacts and local business information
2002/02
£59,995
The Midlands
2008/08
£169,950
Scotland
2007/57
£35,000
South East England
Great car insurance deals online
Competitive
CyDen
London
To £28k
Barclaycard
Various (outside London)
£
£40,000 - £50,000 + benefits
Lloyds Pharmacy
Coventry
To £38k
Barclaycard
Northampton/Liverpool
2 Bathrooms, Balcony and Garden
£359,950
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Apts From £249,950
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Explore mystical Jordan
From £1030 for 7nts 4*
to USA's Most Cosmopolitan City; San Francisco!
£POA
Book Now for Winter 08/09 and Get 10% off!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property.
© Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
One area companies of all size need to look at and manage better is their at-work driving. Management need to be aware and set policies that will reduce the risks. You are 4 times more likely to kill or be killed on the roads than at all fixed workplaces.
Russell , Amersham, England
Mark S:
not all deaths at work can rightly be classified as "accidents". While I accept that there may be no intent, normal manslaughter is when someone is unlawfully killed as the result of gross negligence. In a corporate setting, gross negligence can result from systematic, institutionalised "sloppiness" (as in the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster) as a result of corporate culture.
Calling such deaths "accidents" is symptomatic of the problem - companies need to take Health and Safety more seriously. When they do not, and deaths result, it is right that they are "crimes", not "accidents".
Tom O, London,
Pamela Dix:
No-one sets out to kill anyone in the course of their work. Accidents happen, often as a result of the unfortunate joining of circumstances that no-one foresaw. Sometimes there are bits of individual negligence or sloppiness in the mix.
Contrast that with estimates of 10,000 people a year dying from hospital acquired infections, and there has not been a single prosecution yet.
This law feels very much as though it is about retribution.
MarkS, Leeds,
Does this law apply to the NHS.
Ceomwell, Leeds, England
It would appear that every large company will have to employ a "health and safety" minder for all their work staff. This would be cheaper than paying a fine of 10% turnover. And of course this action would help reduce the unemployment figures. CYNICAL? possibly but when a country with Ministers such as "So what" Balls, it becomes common sense.
M. Cawdery, Portadown, Co. UK, EU
This new law should act as a warning to investors to avoid any company that does anything physical, i.e. don't invest in manufacturers, construction companies or transport companies who operate within the UK.
Peter Fordham, Pego, Spain
The central purpose of this law is to ensure that other companies should not replicate the sloppy corporate behaviour that led to the âunlawful killingâ of so many people in the Herald of Free Enterprise sinking 21 years ago.
This is not about scapegoating, nor retribution, but about what is just.
This law is a testament to the commitment of so many individuals, family and survivor groups who worked together towards a common purpose: to influence business and political structures to change attitudes to what is acceptable practice.
Disaster Actionâs late founder, Maurice de Rohan AO OBE, was at the forefront of that work.
The law should act as an important deterrent, offering the protection denied to those killed on the Herald and in numerous disasters that have followed. The implications of this law for business will not be fully appreciated until the judiciary have had the opportunity to interpret it in the courts.
Pamela Dix
Executive Director
Disaster Action
Pamela Dix, Woking, UK
Does this apply to the government and its responsibility for the armed forces and citizens in foreign countries?
Or is it just the nasty private sector that they want to have a go at (as usual).
MarkS, Leeds,