Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 18 January 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.


Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

The noble Lord makes a case and puts an argument with which we do not ultimately agree. The way in which cases are prepared and the fact that the CPS gives them very careful consideration before going forward ensures that these interests are properly considered. It is in everyone’s interest for cases to be properly supported by evidence. Where evidence is not sufficient to suggest the likelihood of a proper trial, fair consideration and likelihood of a conviction, I am not sure that it would be worth the cost or be in the public interest for such a case to proceed. The requirement for consent does not ultimately prevent a private prosecution, but acts as a filter, which we have seen in some cases of public concern historically. I do not think that I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The noble Lord’s point about seriousness is important. These are very serious cases, and I suspect their number will be small. It is right that we should be absolutely certain that we are taking the right course of action, so that such cases can be properly heard with a realistic prospect of a positive outcome in terms of a conviction.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c295GC 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Compensation Courts Companies Court orders Convictions Crown Prosecution Service Corporate manslaughter Enforcement Jurisdiction Health and safety Judgements Powers Prosecutions Publicity Limitation of actions Negligence Victims
Legislation
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2005-06 to 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk