Liberty warned that while the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill positively fills a significant gap in criminal law, the Bill is riddled with exemptions for Government and its agencies. The bill will receive its second reading in the House of Commons today.
Jago Russell, Policy Officer for Liberty, said:
“For all the Government’s talk of victim’s rights, this Bill shows scant regard for those victims who die as a result of the Government’s own gross negligence.
The Government seems to have drawn up a list of all the circumstances in which its gross negligence could cause death and has asked its lawyers to provide a get-out clause for every one of them.”
Examples of exemption from the offence include:
• Under Clause 4 of the bill, the prison services could not be prosecuted for and convicted of the offence of corporate manslaughter even it were established that its gross negligence caused the death of a prisoner such as Zahid Mubarek. Mubarek was beaten to death with a table leg in his cell at Feltham Young Offenders' Institution in March 2000 by his cellmate Robert Stewart who was known by the Prison Service at the time to be a violent and sometimes racist psychopath.
• Deaths caused by gross negligence in the course of military operations, when preparing for or supporting such operations and during hazardous training activities are expressly exempted from the offence in Clause 5. For example, the families of Sean Benton, 20, Cheryl James, 18, Geoff Gray, 17, and James Collinson, 17, the four young soldiers who died of gunshot wounds at Deepcut Barracks in Surrey between 1995 and 2002, might be denied a remedy under the new laws.
• Exemptions in the bill (Clauses 6 and 7) which relate to the policing, law enforcement and emergency Services would apply to the case of Jean Charles de Menezes who was shot seven times in the head by plain-clothes policemen on a London tube train in July 2005. De Menezes was in no way involved in any terrorist activity.
• A new immunity covers deaths arising from gross negligence in the performance of functions to protect children from harm or in relation to the activities of probation services (child protection and probation). The exemption could apply in a case like Victoria Climbie, who was tortured to death by her great-aunt and the woman's boyfriend in 2000. Victoria was seen by dozens of social workers, nurses, doctors and police officers before she died but all failed to spot and stop the abuse as she was slowly tortured to death.
Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128
NOTES TO EDITORS
1. Liberty’s briefing for the Second Reading in the House of Commons on the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill October 2006 can be found at
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk 2. Liberty greatly welcomes the proposal for a statutory offence of corporate manslaughter. This Bill provides a long-overdue opportunity for Parliament to fill a significant gap in the criminal law. For too long large organisations have escaped punishment where their gross negligence has killed employees or members of the public. A new offence might provide justice to families who lose loved ones in terrible incidents like the Hatfield derailment, the capsizing of the Herald of Free Enterprise or the many work-place deaths that occur each year. For that it is to be welcomed.
3. Sadly, however, in its current form the Bill would deny justice to families that lose loved ones in circumstances like the tragic cases of Victoria Climbie, Zahid Mubarek, Baha Mousa, Jean Charles de Menezes, Naomi Bryant or the young recruits who died in Deepcut barracks. The Bill is riddled with exemptions and get-out clauses for Government and its agencies, which Liberty believes to be neither acceptable nor necessary. Justice for bereaved families should not depend on who was grossly negligent or what activities they were carrying on at the time. A mother whose son is killed as a result of a grossly negligent decision to allow a dangerous criminal out of prison early has just as much right to justice as a mother whose son is killed by the grossly negligent handling of dangerous machinery in a factory. For all the Government’s talk of victims’ rights, this Bill shows scant regard for those victims who die as a result of the Government’s own gross negligence or that of its agencies.
4. Liberty urges Parliament to insist of the removal of the inequalities, unfairness and injustice that would be created by the many exemptions and immunities in the Bill. Liberty also urge Parliament to ask itself whether, in practice, the statutory offence it creates will be effective in protecting life; whether it will provide a satisfactory deterrent against criminally careless practices that kill. Liberty fears that, in its current form, the answer must be “no”. As we explain, in order to create a realistic prospect of conviction, the senior manager test must be removed. More thought must also be given to the punishments that can be imposed on guilty companies and to the inclusion of appropriate sanctions for senior individuals who should be personally culpable for contributing to the company’s gross negligence. Without this, the risk of prosecution will be no more than a financial risk to be balanced in the accounts.
