1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Since April hauliers that break health and safety regulations risk more than a fine if there is a fatality on their premises. The Corporate Manslaughter Act became law on April 6, and it means that, in theory at least, a prosecution could be triggered if someone has been killed at, or as a result of, wort.
It is not easy to fall foul of the new law, because a "gross breach" of duty is required for a successful prosecution.
Even when it operated under common law, corporate manslaughter prosecutions were difficult. Failed prosecutions in high-profile cases included the managers at Balfour Beatty and RaiItrack, who were acquitted following the Hatfield rail crash in 2000. Prosecutions have failed partly because prosecutors could notprove that any individual was the "controlling mind" directing the business.
But on rare occasions it has happened, as when the managing director of a kayaking company was sentenced to three years in jail after four students were killed in a boating accident.
The likelihood of a haulier being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter after the death of an employee is, nevertheless, very real.