However the restrictive approach laid down by the house of lords was challenged by the privy council in Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission. Bearing in mind that the judgements of the Privy Council do not bind on domestic courts.
Corporate manslaughter has been criticised as it is very difficult particularly with large companies to identify an individual who represent the company for the purposes of the doctrine of identification.
Rail track and privatised train operators have been the focus of public anger after three rail accidents happened in a period of only four years. In 1997 there was a Southall railway disaster. The prosecution against Great Western Trains Company collapsed. Then in 1999 there was a Ladbroke Grove train accident, and then in 2000 there was the Hatfield railway accident. The public following these tragedies emphasise the need for the criminal law to provide effective deterrence.
Corporate liability can only be punished by a fine which means the guilty company just shifts the entire burden on consumers by demanding higher prices on products than that which was before.
Corporate Manslaughter has also been criticised as it lacks acting as deterrence. In large companies shareholders are less likely to exercise control over firms with regard to the kind of issues that are likely to come before the courts. Therefore corporate liability may have little effect in promoting better control.
Where serious offences such as manslaughter are concerned, bringing a prosecution against a company may allow the individuals responsible to go free as they may only suffer the prosecution of their company and the fine rather then being prosecuted personally and possibly imprisoned.
All these criticisms have attracted people arguing that the law needs reform. Government is currently thinking about introducing reform on corporate manslaughter. The proposed reforms have been presented by the Home Office in a consultation document reforming the law of Involuntary Manslaughter: the government’s proposal. The proposals on the current law relating to corporate homicide are to replace the existing law with two new offences and they are corporate killing and substantially contributing to corporate killing. The government have proposed to create new offence of corporate killing because of the problem of doctrine of identification. The offence of corporate killing would be based on management failure and liability will only be imposed where the management failure is part of or the main cause of a person death and the failure constitutes conduct falling below what can be reasonably expected of the corporation in circumstances. It would not require the risk to be obvious or that “d” is capable of appreciating the risk. The government have concluded that unincorporated bodies such as hospitals should be the punished the same if liable for fatal accidents.
The offence would not apply to government who claim protection from the prosecution because they are said to be acting as an agent of the crown. Instead the courts would have to demand immediate action on art of the crown to rectify any identified shortcomings. Law commission considered it wouldn’t be reasonable if law was to impose sanctions on company officers where company was found liable for corporate killing as the offence stresses liability of the individual rather than the company. However, the government were scared that without imposing sanction, the offence would not act as a deterrent preventing people from committing the offence and it would also expose danger and a risk to the public. Therefore proposed that disqualification preceding can be bought against certain individuals. Even if a person had some influence for situation in which the failure of management has caused a persons death, then they could be disqualified as well from acting in a management role in the future. The ground for disqualification for such a person would be that of contributing to the management failure resulting in the death.
The other offence would be substantially contributing to corporate killing. Government thinking on imposing liability on those who contributed to the offence. Little detail is given about this offence. Careful thought needs to be given to this offence relating to the actus rea and the men’s rea. The government is not sure as to whether to it provide sanction of imprisonment. It has been argues that it may be better it may be better for the individual being a secondary party to the corporate killing.
The government have proposed offering alternative sanctions as fines do not act as a strong deterrent. Many people have suggested that companies should advertise their convictions so that the public are aware of it. However one problem with this is that large organisation will be likely to advertise in newspaper which they consumers are less likely to read. Another alternative is punishing the company so that all the profit they make during that certain period should be sent to the state. The other alternative is to impose community service order which would be done at there own expense. Law could increase the number of health and safety inspectors.
Mr Lissack has argued that there has been a change in the law on corporate manslaughter following the judgement of Adomako, where it was argued that all that needs to be looked at is companies conduct and whether the company’s behaviour was so bad as to label the conduct as criminal.
It has also been suggested that offences that companies are likely to incur should be taken out of criminal law and placed in civil law so that they can be sued for damages rather then being fined.
Therefore from all the criticisms of corporate manslaughter it is pretty clear that the law is in need of reform. It’s not fair that a company is not punished for their act because the doctrine of identification cannot be proved. Committing a death of a person is murder and just because a business has committed it, it doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be punished for.