---

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has set out a very powerful case. The amendment to bring deaths in police and prison custody within the ambit of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill deserves strong support from your Lordships’ House. The amendments would not, of course, mean that all or most deaths in custody would result in a prosecution for corporate manslaughter. We are not talking about a blanket provision. That would apply only when, exceptionally, there had been a gross breach of a relevant duty of care. However, if that was the case, in those circumstances, a prosecution for corporate manslaughter should enable the courts to hold that serious management failures, a point rightly stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, had occurred resulting in an individual’s death. In their 2005 consultation paper, Corporate Manslaughter: The Government’s Draft Bill for Reform, the Government argued that deaths in custody should be exempted from the scope of the Bill on the grounds that, "““organisational failings in these areas are more appropriately matters for wider forms of public and democratic accountability””." They argued that deaths in prisons are, "““subject to rigorous independent investigations through public inquests before juries and through independent reports capable of ranging widely over management issues and publishable post inquest””." This is nonsense. There are still grieving parents who have no answer to how many vulnerable youngsters have died. I have taken up case after case in your Lordships’ House. I would simply recommend that people look at the case studies that have been produced by inquests to back up this statement. However, the Independent Police Complaints Commission effectively answered that argument in its comments on the consultation paper. It stated: "““The consultation paper suggests that the reason for not applying corporate manslaughter to public functions is that this would conflict with existing accountability mechanisms””." That point was repeatedly stressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd. The IPCC continued: "““In fact, it would complement them. All deaths following police contact have to be referred to the IPCC, and some of these will be independently investigated. If the evidence from such an investigation showed the most appropriate way forward was a corporate manslaughter prosecution, it would cause serious public concerns about the effectiveness of public accountability if this was not an option””." The commission pointed out that at present, in a case of serious systematic failure resulting in death, "““there could be a disproportionality whereby a death occurs and the only sanctions available are minor disciplinary sanctions against individual officers””." This is a wholly unsatisfactory position, which the amendments would remedy. Unless these amendments are passed, a private company running a business could be liable to a charge of corporate manslaughter, but a public service charged with the care of particularly vulnerable people behind locked doors and high walls would not. This is an indefensible situation—indeed, because of the particularly vulnerable position of prisoners, we should take special care to protect their lives. Even more indefensibly, a private company running a prison would not be liable to prosecution for corporate manslaughter, although a private company running any other kind of business would be liable to such a charge. The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee concluded in their joint report on the draft corporate manslaughter Bill that, "““there is no principled justification for excluding deaths in prisons or policy custody from the ambit of the offence … where deaths in prisons and policy custody occur, they should be properly investigated and the relevant bodies held accountable before the courts where appropriate for an offence of corporate manslaughter””." Perhaps I may remind the Minister of the analogy with previous race relations legislation whereby functions of criminal justice agencies, and policeand immigration officers, were excluded. It took the death of Stephen Lawrence and a proper inquiry to make the Government pass the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, which brought these agencies within the jurisdiction of that legislation. Let us not make a similar mistake.