Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Judd (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 December 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.


Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

My Lords, I am sure that we all cheer my noble friend for her powerful and clear presentation of the conclusions of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I, too, am a member. Does she agree that there is another very powerful argument in paragraph 1.43 of the report? Very briefly, it says that, "““the effect of these provisions in the Bill is to preclude the possibility of prosecution for corporate manslaughter in precisely those contexts in which the positive obligation in Article 2 is at its strongest, and may require, in a particular case, that criminal prosecutions be brought: the use of lethal force by the police or army; deaths in custody; deaths of vulnerable children who should be in care, to name just a few examples””." Does my noble friend agree that the whole House should take the report very seriously and that there are several powerful arguments in it that are highly relevant to our considerations?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
687 c1918 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Clubs Armed forces Death Companies Directors Crown immunity Corporate manslaughter Disqualification Liability Jurisdiction Health and safety Fines Exemptions Government departments Emergency services Police Prosecutions Management Police custody Public bodies Negligence Training
Legislation
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2005-06 to 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk