Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Garnier (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.


Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene, because although it is not for me to respond for the Government, it seems to me that if the Bill has any merit at all it is that it gets rid of the confusion and difficulties caused by the need to find in a corporate manslaughter prosecution an individual or group of individuals who can be identified as the directing mind. Removing that confusion and replacing it with the measures in the Bill is sensible, because it relieves the court and the prosecution of that hurdle. I agree that the Home Secretary did not have full mastery of his Bill, but he was clear about this point, which he made a couple of times: the individual personal liability for manslaughter by gross negligence remains. If the Bill has merit, it is that of getting rid of the confusion that has led to many wasted prosecutions—wasted time, emotion and cost—chasing corporate defendants through the principle of identification, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his criticism of clause 18.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c233 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Accountability Armed forces Death Companies Directors Crown immunity Corporate manslaughter Disqualification Liability Homicide Health and safety Health and Safety Executive Fines Exemptions Foreign companies Police Prosecutions Management Negligence Scotland Prohibition notices
Legislation
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2005-06 to 2006-07
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk