Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
25 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the usual cause of deaths in this context ? |
Bad decisions by companies or carelessness in ensuring adequate safety systems |
|
|
A company can be found criminally liable because ? |
It is a separate legal entity |
|
|
What are the problems in establishing liability for companies ? |
Proving the mens rea - how can a company have intention or show recklessness ? Also, punishments |
|
|
Case involving miner electrocuted on fence during strike where judge held company not prosecutable ? |
R v Cory Bros Ltd (1927) |
|
|
Case where CA confirmed limitations to concept of corporate criminal liability - certain offences not committable and impossible to convict where punishment 'physical' (eg imprisonment) |
R v ICR Haulage Ltd (1944) |
|
|
Case example of the 'identification principle' ? |
Tesco Supermarket Ltd v Nattrass (1972) |
|
|
What is the identification principle ? |
Prosecuting company if possible to prove that senior executives of it has necessary MR for an offence |
|
|
Problems with identification principle ? |
Case law held at least one senior executive had to know everything that was going on relevant to the crime before liability accrued |
|
|
Example of where problems with the identification principle led to failure of prosecution ? |
Zeebrugge disaster P&O Ferries + major train disasters (Southall, Hatfield, Ladbroke Grove) |
|
|
Benefits of corporate liability ? |
Might cause cessation of trading for smaller company and ensure more vigilance from senior management of large firms |
|
|
Statute covering current law ? |
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 |
|
|
Offence of corporate manslaughter ? |
S1 CMCHA 2007 |
|
|
Prosecution focus for the statutory offence is on ? |
Collective conduct of company's senior management |
|
|
To establish the offence CMCHA 2007 1(2) requires ? |
Proof that defendant is a relevant organisation (corpn, Dept, police force, partnership/TU/employers association,) |
|
|
Elements of the offence from 1(1) ? |
Organisation owed relevant duty of care to decreased, breached that duty, breach causes death, breach is a gross breach |
|
|
S1(3) has ? |
Only guilty if substantial element of breach concerns way activities managed/organised by its senior management |
|
|
What about Crown immunity ? |
Removed - certain gov depts owe same duty of care as corporations |
|
|
S2 of Act defines ? |
Meaning of relevant duty of care |
|
|
Duty of care is ? |
Same as those already owed by it in the civil law of negligence and eg in respect of systems of work and equipment used by employees, condition of worksite occupied and products and services to customers |
|
|
S1(4) defines ? |
Gross breach - if conduct falls far below what can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances |
|
|
S8 sets out ? |
Number of factors for jury to take into account - h&s legislation, attitudes, policies practices systems etc within that organisation |
|
|
S1(4)(c) defines ? |
Senior management as people who play significant role in A) making decisions on how organisation's activities are to be managed B) actual managing/organising of the activities |
|
|
S20 of the Act ? |
Abolishes the option of charging the organisation with the common law offence of manslaughter by gross negligence |
|
|
Case finishing that failure to comply with health and safety legislation can result in combination of prosecution of organisation and individual directors ? |
R v Geotechnical Holding Ltd (2011) - Corp ms and Ms by gn and breach of Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 against sole director |
|
|
Can individual be prosecuted for being an accomplice to an organisation's corporate manslaughter ? |
No - specifically excluded under s18 CMCHA 2007 |
