Request a Callback
Prior to the legislation, it was possible for the corporations to be prosecuted for a wide range of criminal offences including the issue of manslaughters and for the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughters, a company had to be in gross breach of duty of care owed to the victims. The company could be convicted for the issue of corporate homicide and manslaughters and there is negligence in gross breach of contract of the corporations. In 1996, the Law Commissions report lenitive the criminal code, involuntary manslaughters which includes the proposals for the new offences of corporate killing that would act as the revision of prosecuting the companies to complement the offences primarily aimed at the individuals or the victims. The Law Commission’s report includes its proposals on corporate killing, provided the basis for the Government’s subsequent consultation paper in the year of 2000 with “Reforming the Law on Involuntary Manslaughter: the Government’s Proposals”, due to negligence in the gross breach in case of corporate manslaughters.
The study is hereby efficient to analyse the context to which the corporations are being prosecuted under the law of corporate homicide and corporate manslaughters. Difficulties with the prosecuting the corporate bodies for the gross negligence manslaughters were also there in Northern Ireland and Wales where the common Law sustainably are same and the policy responsibility for the criminal law lies with the secretary of state for Northern Ireland. In Scotland also, the criminal law on culpable homicide differs from the law of manslaughters elsewhere in the UK and there is same issues of identifying the implementation of the law to prosecute the corporate firms creating the cause of person’s death. The prosecuting will be brought against the organisation itself not any specific person as the crime is against the companies that create the causes for person’s death. There is hereby negligence in gross breach of contract of the corporate firms and it is the responsibility of the court and common law of the country to prosecute the corporate, liable for the situation of person’s death. Through this study, it is possible to evaluate the cases related to corporate homicide and manslaughters, review the implementation of the law and legislative structure of prosecuting the corporations, who are liable of creating the causes of person’s death.
Corporate homicide is the criminal offence where a business or the corporate firm is found to have caused a person’s death. The business in this regard is prosecuted for the offence of the corporate manslaughters in the way of the activities which are managed causes a death through a gross breach of duty of care to the deceased. It is a large part of breach of contract of the corporate firms where the organisational representatives fail to maintain safety and security of the workforce, and for which accidents happened in the workplace. The corporate manslaughters Act do not affect the requirements and it raised the issue of corporate homicide across the UK and USA. Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is the main legislative structure that must be implemented efficiently in the UK and it is an act of the parliament of the UK that seeks to broaden the law on corporate manslaughters in the country. Corporate manslaughter is a serious crime in several jurisdiction including England and Wales as well as Hong Kong, and it enables the corporations to be punished and ensured for the culpable conduct which leads to person’s death. It extends to beyond compensation that might be awarded in civil litigation or any criminal prosecution of the individual. The corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide Act 2007 came into effect with 6th April 2008. The acts are effective to impose criminal responsibility on the organisations where gross negligence leads to death of the person in the workplace. Although it is not a part of health and safety law, as corporate manslaughter is the criminal offence that refers to crime committed by the company or the corporate firm which leads to work related death.
The research aims at exploring to what extend the corporations are prosecuted for their acts leading to people death, where there are in appropriate activities for which the incident of death happens. It is the liability of the corporate firm to protect the employees and in case of failure of protection, death happens and thus the jurisdictions and country common law is responsible to prosecute the organisation for such incident of death. In this regard, the study provides a scope to analyse the cases as well as review the Acts and legislative structure of prosecuting the corporate firm of the issue of corporate homicide and manslaughters.
The major objectives of the study are such as,
To understand the theory and concepts of corporate homicide
To review the legislative structure for corporate homicide and manslaughters
To explore the corporate cases leading the person’s death and the prosecution against the liable firm
To recommend some suitable suggestions for change the law and its implementation so that it would be possible to have successful prosecution against the corporation creating cases leading to person’s death
The punishment are there for murder and manslaughter range from life sentences to prescribed years in prison or suspended sentences depending on the facts of the case. Based on statistics, these cases are easy to prosecute and have high prosecution rates. However, although the punishment for Corporate Manslaughter/Homicide also has the maximum sentencing of life imprisonment, very few of these cases have been successfully prosecuted, especially to the maximum sentencing for various reasons. Due to lack of implementation of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, there is poor prosecution against the corporate firms in the cases of people death, where the senior management team and corporate leader of the organisation fail to protect the livelihood of the individuals. Hence, the research question is,
To what extent does the law provide for adequate punishment for the individual’s breached duty of care from the corporations?
The sub questions are,
What are the existing theory and concepts of corporate homicide?
What are the legislative structure for corporate homicide and manslaughters?
What are the corporate cases leading the person’s death and the prosecution against the liable firm?
What would be the suggested recommendations for change the law and its implementation so that it would be possible to have successful prosecution against the corporation creating cases leading to person’s death?
The study has eighth chapters through which it is possible to develop arguments for implementation of the law and legislative structure to speculate the corporations liable for person’s death. The first chapter is beneficial to develop the background of the study and create aim and objectives of the dissertation for conducting the research efficiently and fulfil the research question. The second chapter is about the Constitutes homicide/manslaughter for evaluating the recent practices of the cases of corporate homicide. The third chapter will focus on the history of corporate liability in manslaughter/homicide cases and the fourth chapter will explore the recent incidents such as Greenfell Tower. The fifth chapter is about analysing the issues with prosecuting corporate manslaughter/homicide cases and the sixth chapter will explore the UK and USA civil laws approach for prosecuting the liable corporations, creating causes of person’s death. The last chapter will provide a scope to recommend some suitable suggestion for further changed in order to prosecuting the liable corporations successfully to make fair decisions for giving justice to the victims. Hence, the dissertation can be conducted in a systematic way for evaluating the recent cases related to corporate homicide and manslaughters in the corporate world to make justice and fair decision for supporting the victims.
Corporate homicide or manslaughters is a crime in several jurisdictions including England and Wales in order to punish the organisation, for conducting the situation leading to individual death. There are several theories of corporate homicide through which it is possible to analyse the constitution of corporate homicide. Identification doctrine is the approach to hold the offences of corporate manslaughters which is made out when an individual commits all the elements of the offense of manslaughter and that person is sufficient senior to be seen as the controlling mind of the corporations. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 are being executed in England and Wales to punish the responsible organisation and the senior management team, for such condition leading to person’s death. Aggregation doctrine is the second theoretical framework and it is known in USA as the collective knowledge doctrine, aggregating all the acts and mental elements of various company employees and identifies the offences of all the elements of manslaughters are made out, though not necessarily within a single controlling mind. This approach is accepted and applied in the US, and it has been rejected in England and Wales. Reactive corporate fault is the idea that was proposed by Fisse and Braithwaute where the individuals has committed the actus reus of manslaughters, and a court should have the power to order the employing corporation to institution the measures for preventing further recurrence and should face criminal prosecution. Management failure model is taken into under consideration of Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 in the UK in April, 2008 where the corporation’s activities are investigated for identifying the cases of person’s death and violation of the ethical practice of employment in the corporations firms. Failure of the breach of contract further raises prosecution of the liable corporates. Vicarious liability is the broader principles that are often involved to establish the corporate manslaughters in the USA, where the employees commit a crime within the sphere of the employment and with the intention of benefiting the corporations. This criminality can be imputed to the company. The principle has sometimes been used in England and Wales as well for strict liability offences concerning the regulatory matters but the exact law is unclear.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is an act executed in the UK where the corporation is considered to be juristic person and can be capable of committing, being convicted and sentenced for a criminal offence. The act attempts to align the offence of corporate killing north and south border in which the organisational activities are organised and managed in the basis of the causes of person’s death and the amounts of gross breach of the relevant duty of care owed by the modernisation to the decrease. The prosecution in England or wales require the emission of the Director of public prosecutions and in the Northern Ireland. The director of public prosecutions for the Northern Ireland and no neutral person can be charged with aiding and abetting the offence. The organisations including corporations, partnership firms, trade unions and employers associations as well as police forces and various governmental departments are suffering from criminal activities leading to person’s death. Gross breach of duty of care by an organisation must be prosecuted as per the alleged conduct amount to a breach of that duty as per the organisational circumstances. The risk and causes of death as well as the failure must be investigated as well as the evidences must be collected related to the attitudes, policies, system and accepted practices of the corporate firms.
In this regard, the senior management team is highly responsible to such activity where the incidents lead to person’s death. The senior management team make the organisational decision and handle the management team to run the organisations and thus the breach of contract to the employment leads to prosecution of the senior executives of the corporate firms in the country. There are several penalties where The Sentencing Guidelines Council issued a steps based definitive guideline effective from February, 2016 for sentencing the offence of corporate manslaughters. The starting fine as penalties in the organisations is £300,000 and a no limit maximum as per the cases of corporate homicide and manslaughters. In this regard, the Company Act is necessary to be implemented in order to develop practices and ethical rules in the organisations to run the business sustainably. Additionally, the employment contract management and ethical tactics such as safe workplace, security at the organisation, managing safety measures are also necessary to be executed properly for reducing the breach of contract. In this regard, the Health and Safety Act at workplace 1974 is also another major legislation executed in the corporate firms for managing the safety and security of the employees. Hereby, it is essential for the court and jurisdiction of the country to prosecute the organisation, creating such causes leading to person’s death.
Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, if the organisation manages or creates the activities causes a person’s death or amount of gross breach of relevant duty of care on the part of the organisation, it is necessity to prosecute the firm for its illegal activities. The organisations are hereby guilty and liable to compensate the victim and abide nu other sanctions under this act. The act mainly broadens the identification principle by introducing senior management failure, where the senior management team of the company fail to maintain their commitment towards the employees and it creates breaches of contract. The faults of the senior management group further raise the prosecution due to negligence of their duty of care at the corporations and according to the government of the UK., the new offence is designed to secure, in a wide range of different situation to serious criminal offence that reflects the gravity and consequences of the conduct involved in the worst instances of management failure leading to the cause of death. Hence, the major offence is to create the satiation of causing death in the organisations. The major activities such as creating the situation of person’s death, a breach of a relevant duty of care, violation of the health and safety act at the workplace of the organisation, gross breach and senior management failure are the major activities that lead to investigation for prosecuting the organisation, liable for the unethical cases. There are two tier of potential liability, one is for contributing in the corporate offences leading to disqualification from acting the management capacity in future and secondly for a more serious cases, substantially contributing to the corporate offence have carried to the potential for the sentence of imprisonment. Senior management team is hereby mandatory for identifying the offences and engagement of the senior managers in the cases of corporate homicide where there is substantial control over the actions of the subordinates and the liability if not limited only to the seniors management team but it further leads to operational level executives and corporate leaders for creating the causes of person’s death. Section 18 of the Act further absolves the offending Corporation from any individual liability for abetting, aiding, counselling and procuring the commission of an offence of corporate manslaughter or corporate homicide. Hence, gross breach of contract of employment as well as negligence of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, lead the corporates towards creating unethical practices at the organisations for which the individuals are suffering from serious issues and leading to death.
There are several ways to punish the liable corporations, who create the situation leading to person’s death. Fine is a punishment of providing compensation to the victims where the rationale behind imposing fine on a company is that every corporations function with a profit motive and it aims to maximise its financial turnover. Hence, imposing penalty in terms of fines is one way to punish the company for its wring activities and it further helps to deter them from committing such offences again in near future, for such financial inability to correct their errors by the way of sanction fines. However, for the large corporations, fines cannot be a good financial sanction to prosecute the company as it does not create many consequences for the low fine amount as compared to the size of the company and the profitability earned by the organisation. Another major disadvantage is spill over effects which refers that imposing fine may be passed on to the customers which are definitely not warranted for by an economy. Hence, it is necessary to review the whole system of imposing fines to the large organisation after fair investigation. Another way of punishing the corporations is remedial orders. In holding the corporate liabilities for the new offences under the act, courts have been empowered section 9 to make the order requiring the corporations found guilty of an offence to remedy the breach committed by the company. Hence, remedial orders are essential for prosecuting the corporations, liable for breach of contract. The novel penalty is known as remedial orders where the objective of this firm of penalty is to reform the company’s policy and ethical practices, so that it would be possible for the company to restructure the whole process and run its operations ethically. Another strategy of culpability order where it is imposed by the act under the section 10, where the court makes an order requiring the corporations convicted of an offence under the act. It depends on the offences of the organisation, specified crime, amount of fine imposed and the terms of remedial order made for the company. There is imprisonment punishment for the cases of corporate homicide which leads to person’s death and it is essential to implement the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and make justice for the victims.
It is essential to review the history of corporate homicides and manslaughters as the incident leading to person death and hamper their quality of life are increasing over the period of time, due to negligence and breach of contract to ensure the duty of care of the corporations. Hence, it is essential to review the cases and identify the failure of the corporations to maintain health and safety for the stakeholders including the employees and also the customers or buildings clients. It is the responsibility of the corporations to executive health and Safety At workplace 1974 in the workplace and ensures to maximise health and wellbeing of the individuals, who are engaged with the company. The cases will be evaluated further for analysing the negligence and lack of duty of care in terms of the corporations, where the corporate homicide cases have been reported and these are under on-going investigation process to provide justice to the victims.
Maidstone and Tunbridge NHS trust is a corporate body providing health and social care to the individuals across the society. On 9th of October 2012, the issue of corporate homicide raised due to the cause of death of Frances Cappuccini by a gross breach of its duty of care owed to said Frances Cappuccini. The senior management team and care givers fail to maintain the duty of care at the NHS trust and the activities of the senior team at the NBHS trust was being substantial element that failed to take reasonable care to ensure the anaesthetists involved in the care of Mrs Frances Cappuccini. There are quality health and social care team with involvement of the senior team at NHS trust, but the incident of death of the patient raise the issue of manslaughters at the trust in order to negligence and lack of quality care leading to breach of contract to patient safety and security. The qualification of the health care staff is good and they are trained well to manage patient but this case raise controversy about the duty of care of the trust towards the patient. Earlier the day of death of the patients, her second son was safely delivered, but Mrs Cappuccini suffered from extensive bleeding and was transferred to the theatre for an examination under anaesthetic. The errors made by the anaesthetists who were caring the patient, with the result of that she fell into cardiac arrest and she died at 4.20 pm that afternoon. It is a serious case of corporate homicide and manslaughters where negligence and gross breach towards the duty of care are the major issue. Both the anaesthetists were employed by the Maidstone and Tunbridge NHS trust and they are charged with corporate manslaughters contrary to the section 1 of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. There were gearing and pre-trial arranged by the court and at the hearing, it has been explored that the crown should be ordered to abandon those aspects of their case that related to the events before the 2007 Act came into force or prosecute for the manslaughters by gross negligence at common law principles. Another application is that the crown provides effective particulars of the allegations that the way in which the Trusts activities were managed or organised by the senior management team, and it was sustainable element sin the alleged gross breach of duty. It is also under investigation and there are several issues to identify the liable person or organisation for patient death. As per the case summary, the crown must prove the way in which the trust activities are managed and organized by the senior team members and the crown in this regard failed to identify the person or person responsible for such incident of gross breach of duty of care at the trust.
On 1978, three teenage girls driving in a Ford, Pinto and that were hit from behind on Highway 33 in the Northern Indiana. Within a moment, car burst into flames and Lyn Ulrich, 16 and her cousin Donna Ulrich, 18, were burned to death. Eight hours later, Lyn's 18-year-old sister, Judy, who had third degree, burns over 95 per cent of her body, also died. It is a serious issue related to corporate homicide and the criminal prosecution of Ford Motor Company re-established an important precedent. In these cases there is involvement of human health and safety, corporations and the executives of the company could be required to submit not only to the sanctions of traditional federal agencies and scrutiny agency, but also to state criminal courts as well. There is negligence in car manufacturing activities as well as health and safety act is also violated in the corporation which leads to the situation of person’s death. Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, the investigation is going on efficiently with community involvement for identifying transparent and quality data and information related to the car. The Tort law and criminal law are applied in this case where even though the owning and operating a motor vehicle is especially beneficial and encouraged activity regulated by the administrative law and threat of civil suites; the criminal laws are occasionally empowered to deal such cases. It mainly violates the business ethics and there is gross breach of duty of care owed the clients. Between 1971 and 1978, the Pinto was responsible for a number of fire-related deaths and the critics further deteriorate the business of Ford. NHS finally adopted a 30-mph collision standard in 1976, where Pinto then acquired a rapture proof fuel tank and it was obliged to recall all 1971-1976 Pintos for the fuel tank modifications. Hence, remedial punishment is implemented in this case to recall the cars and change the fuel tanks. Between 1971 and 1978, 50 lawsuits were brought against Ford in connection with rear end accidents in the car.
In addition to this, awarding over $3 million in compensatory damages to the victims of a Pinto crash, and the jury awarded a landmark $125 million in punitive damages against the corporation Ford. The judge reduced punitive damages to 3.5 million later. On August 10, 1978, the case of three girls happened and the corporation Ford was charged with criminal homicide. The judge in this case advised jurors that Ford should be convicted if it had clearly disregarded the harm that might result from the actions and disregarded further represented as a substantial deviation from the acceptable standard of conduct. Ford mainly violates the standard of manufacturing quality cars and ion 1980, the jury found Ford not guilty of criminal homicide. Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, the case of Ford has been investigated, where the victims get an amount as compensation from the corporation. Apart from that, the existing Pinto cars were recalled by the company to change their structure of fuel tanks. Additionally, as per the punishment for such business unethical practice and violation of duty of care, jury awarded $4.2 million in actual damages and $101 million in punitive damages to Moseley’s parents. The activities as per the court and law of jurisdiction, the prosecutors try to investigate the cases and identify the liable organisations in the society for punishing them with imprisonment, fines and remedial measures, so that the corporations would be able to improve their business ethics and maintain the health and safety of the stakeholders to ensure quality of the operational activities.
The fire which destroyed the Greenfell Tower in June, 2017 is one of the UKs worst modern disasters that are still under investigation and inquiry. Just before 01.00, 14th June, the fire broke out in the kitchen of ta firth floor flat at 23 storey tower block in North Kensington, West London. Within a minute, fire has spread up the exterior of the building and they spread to all four sides and by 03.00, most of the upper floors were well alight. Seventy two people have been died for this. Greenfell Tower was the part of the Lancaster West Estate, a social housing complex of 1000 homes and it has been built in the year of 1970 and recently renovated. The fire began "in or around" a Hotpoint fridge-freezer in flat 16 on the fourth floor according to the director of the housing complex and there was a smoke alarm. The flat owner immediately called fire brigade which logged the call at 00.54 and first arriving was at 00.59. The first fire crew entered the flat around 1.07 and they initially searched the bedrooms and did not enter the kitchen until 1.14. From the fourth floor, the fire spread rapidly upwards and across the eastern side of the building, from there, it spread across the north face of the tower. There was blaze reaching the top floor on the east side of the Grenfell Tower by about 01:26, less than 30 minutes after fire-fighters had arrived.
The fire has spread to the neither side at around 01:42 and at 01:52, the fire also spread across the eastern zone of the tower. It is hereby a serious issue and can be considered as corporate homicide, where the fire brigade and the supervisor fail to supervise the whole system and fire has spread rapidly across different sides of the building. 65 people were rescued initially by the fire-fighters. The most significant part of the renovation of Grenfell Tower was the addition of external cladding which consists of aluminium sheets bonded to a central plastic or polyethylene core. In the public inquiry system, it has been revealed that, polyethylene material in the cladding was the major and primary cause of fire spread and t is considered a serious corporate homicide, where the incident of fire spread rapidly across different sides of the tower. The director also revealed that, "The ACM (aluminium composite material) product on Grenfell Tower incorporates highly combustible polyethylene polymer filler which melts, drips, and flows at elevated temperature. The polyethylene filler material is expected to release large amounts of energy during combustion". Hence, as per this report, cladding structure played a serious role in spreading fee, where there are also numbers of other flammable materials including polyurethane polymer foam insulation board that pre-dated the refurbishment. Hence, the materials were inflammable and the structure of the tower is not appropriately made. The final death toll from the blaze is now recorded as 72 people. In the Grenfell inquiry, the ex-employee has also described that there was dishonest act at the firm that made inflammable insulation used in the tower, which is totally unethical to the duty of care.
In depth investigation team has been generated for massive search and recovery operations led by the Met, city of London and British Transport police immediately. Specially trained officers were also empowered to search every single flat for examining some 15.5 tonnes of debris on each floor, and this investigation was carried with effective cooperation of the archaeologists, forensic anthropologists and forensic dentists or deontologist. The Met police are looking into the offences including the manslaughters and corporate homicide, misconduct in public office and breaches of fire safety regulations in related to the fire in the tower. The investigation is still under on-going process where the forces are already gathered 31 million documents related to the tower, 2500 physical exhibits as well as some 1144 witness that have given their statement and 383 companies who are also engaged with the investigation process. Hence, a public inquiry process is adopted by the court and law of jurisdiction to handle the case of corporate homicide and manslaughters in Greenfell Tower. The lawyers are also handling the cases by representing the survivors and the relatives of the victims and provided evidences to the court since December 2017.
The phase of inquiry was very slow and it is a time taken process for which the case becomes delay. As per the phase one inquiry, it was examined and report has been released in October, 2019. As per the report, it was found that there was systematic failure in London Fire Brigade response. The phase two investigation is still under process of inquiry and it revealed the information about building refurbishment and external cladding. Hence, it has been seen that, it is a lengthy and time taking process where the inquiry and the actual punishment become delay. It is the case of manslaughters and corporate negligence which cost lives and is currently being investigated. It was the responsibility of the building council, directors and management team to ensure building safety and as per the investigation report; there was failure in maintaining the fire regulations as well as handling the structure of the building for which fire has spread rapidly to the top floors of the tower. There is lack of transparency and accountability as well as there is unethical practice of lack of implementation of fire regulations and maintaining building safety. The legal experts are there to support the victims and they also provide evidences and statement from the residents in the tower and it becomes a lengthy process. Hereby, the lawsuit and the process of investment are not suitable and app4oriate to make justice for the victims and punish the responsible organisations for creating such incidents that cause persons death. There are criticism in the lawsuits and judgments where it becomes a lengthy process of providing justice to the victims and develop further remedial process to avoid such incident in future.
There are several issues in the corporate homicide and manslaughters cases where it becomes a lengthy process to prosecute the actual liable corporations and it leads to lack of investment, poor data management and mismanagement of providing justice to the victims. The victims are suffering from their loss of person’s death and it is essential for the court and country jurisdiction to handle the cases of corrodes homicide and makes justice for the victims. The major issues associated to the corporate homicide and prosecuting the firms liable for the incidents are described further.
Personhood manifests the unity of the spiritual and the corporate in human existence and there it is essential for understanding the characteristics of the human spirits. Personhood gives to the human individual a universal worth and an exceptional standing, where there are several conditions of personhood which are consciousness, use of language, ability to initiate the actions, self-consciousness and rationality as well as intelligence. The organisation due to lack of personhood in the cases of corporate homicide, the investigation process become lengthy and there is lack all the properties requisite for moral personhood. It becomes a serious issue to identify the liabilities of the corporations and find the actual person liable for the cases. Mainly the whole corporation is prosecuted for such unethical practice, but due to lack of personhood the process of getting justice become lengthy.
The issue of mens rea and actus reus is also there which leads to difficulties in identifying the responsible person or corporation of such cases of manslaughters. Mens rea is the mental element of a person intention to commit crime or the knowledge that one’s action or lack of action would cause to be committed to crime. As per the common law, "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty" and as per civil law, it is not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract to Tort. Traditional common law focuses on the guilt or innocence of the person relied upon whether he had committed the crime (actus reus) or whether the intended to commit the crime (mens rea). It is hereby a complex state where decision becomes complicated for the court and jurisdiction to give justice to the victims. As per modern criminal law approach, by using the American Law Institute Model Penal Code, corporate homicide resulting to person’s death is considered to be a crime irrespective of identifying the purpose knowingly or unknowingly. Hence, the results are investigated rather than analysing the purpose of the person conducting the situation leading to person’s death. Hence, there is serious problem in decision making principle by court and country jurisdiction to provide justice to the victims.
It is essential to maintain the transparency and quality of data as well as manage digital information strategically through latest technological advancement. However, the investigating officers face difficulties to maintain transparency and quality of data due to lack of involvement of the community and representatives of the corporate firms which deteriorate the quality of the data.
In recent years, there has been an explosion of surveillance video and body-worn camera footage produced, which has led to the need to transcribe this information and help the investigation agency for conducting in depth investigation. Hence, transcription is the valuable tool for a prosecutor, particularly the audio and video record. However, in the recent cases, there are lack of evidences through transcription which delay the cases and it raises the errors in investigation and decision making process. The corporations need high cost for managing the audio and video transcription and for which the investigating officers fail to gather the evidences through appropriate transcription and it is a serious issue which make the investigation process and decision making lengthy.
Lack of witness is one of the major issues, for which delay happens in the cases of corporate homicide, where there is also controversy between the common law and criminal law to identify the person or corporation creating the situation leading to person’s death. Community prosecuting is hereby mandatory to engage the community members and gather their statement for further investigation. However, due to lack of witness, critical knowledge about the cases and non-cooperation of the community members, the police officers and investigating agency face difficulties to arrest the person or corporations for such crime. Hence, there is lack of transparency and accuracy to gather the statement due to non-cooperation and poor participation of the community members, senior management team of the corporations as well as the family of the victims.
The prosecutors have great deal with the criminal justice system and the prosecutors make pre-trial stage for decision making activities as per the statutory body act and the jurisdiction fo the country. Hence, the issue of lack of forensic statement and evidences as well as complex decisions making practice becomes the process lengthy to identify he liable corporation and punish the company for the crime. Here also, the issue of personhood exists to identify the actual person omitting the crime or the whole senior management team failing to follow their duty of care.
Die to the above mentioned issues in the corporate homicide and manslaughters cases; it is difficult for the investing officers to manage their investigation process by maintaining quality data and transcriptions. Controversies in common law and criminal law as well as the principles of Mens rea and actus reus further raise difficulties in making decision to provide justice to the victims. On the other hand, the issue of lack of personhoods also another problem in decision by maintaining the corporate homicide laws and legislative structure to give justice to the victims by identifying the corporation creating such situation of persons death and punishing them with imprisonment, penalties, fines and remedial offers.
There are differences in the civil and common law as well as the jurisdiction system in the UK and USA is also different from each other. In the common law, the judges are more active to make decision after analysing the situation and the cases of corporate homicide and on the other hand, civil law includes the sources of jurisdiction and law in the country where the legislative structure is applied and the court and judges follow the rules to make decision. In the common law, the judges are playing more important role to make decision after in depth analysis and investigation of the cases. Common law in the UK is also known as Anglo American law, as the body of customary law, based upon the jurisdictions decision and embodied in the reports of the decided cases, that has been administered by the common law courts of England. The legal system is also found in the USA now and most of the commonwealth countries. The common law system in applied in the UK, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland where the judges are playing an important role to make decision for providing justice to the victims under the cases of corporate homicide or manslaughters. The civil law is now merged with the legal system and common law in the UK and it becomes a purposeful technique of legislative interpretation than the customer common law. The regime of human rights represented by the European convention on human rights 1950 has exercised a similar influencing the UK since the law by the parliament of the Human Rights Act 1998. In the corporate homicide cases, the civil law as well as common law is applied for investigating the cases and the legislative structure are also followed such as Company Act, Health and Safety Act at workplace 1974 and Human rights Act 1998, to make justice for the victims.
In the USA, Common law is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. Common law mainly influences the decision by the judge in unusual cases where the outcome cannot be determined based on the existing statutes or written rules of law. The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes, where the federal common law is related to the rules created and applied by the federal court and statutory bodies. The federal government of the USA as well as civil liberties are important for managing the jurisdiction of the USA where the United States Codes are officially complication and codification of general and permanent federal statutory bodies. American common law is effective to make judgements over the crimes at the counties and duty of care must be maintained efficiently in the corporations to ensure safety and security towards the stakeholders, engaged with the business. The federal law of the USA is also effective where employment law is important to be maintained in the organisations to have powerful strategy of managing strong employee base. The federal and state level authorities are concerned about the employees and customers engaged with the organisations where the trademark of the company, authenticity as well as the health and safety conditions are essential to be managed well. The Administrative Procedure Act is also executed in the USA for managing the regulations to run the corporations ethically. There are also ethical principles of managing accountability and transparency, using the quality materials to provide goods and services to the customers and managing the employees at the workplace. The criminal law of the USA is also strict where penalties and capital punishment are provided to the criminals. There are several ways of giving penalties for corporate homicide such as punishment through remedial actions, fines, orders to pay restitution directly to victims and lengthy prison sentences. Hereby American rule is strict to punish the liable corporations for creating the situation of person’s death and in this regard the common law and federal law are executed well to give justice to the victims.
On the other hand, in the UK, the Tort and common law are also executed efficiently in order to provide justice to the victims in case of corporate homicide and manslaughters. In the UK, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 has been executed from 2008, 6th April to make judgements towards the crime of corporate homicide. The British common law along with Tort is also strict where the loss of the human being is being measured including intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things to give justice to the victims and investigate the cases of corporate homicide to identify the liable person or corporations in the country. By the Tort law and Criminal LW, the liability is imposed in terms of intentional actions, reckless behaviour, carelessness, product liability and innocence. The common law is effective where the court and judge are playing crucial role to punish the criminals on the basis of the above five factors that lead to breach of contract regarding duty of care. Hence, the common law and the Tort are useful in the UK to handle the cases of corporate homicide and identify the liable person or corporations to give justice to the victims. The success rate of the cases in both the countries is increasing over the period of time, where digital data management, transparency and quality data handling as well as in depth investigation through transcriptions and community involvement are helpful for the court and judges to make the final decision of penalties so that it would be possible for the judges to give justice to the victims. Hence, both the countries are efficient to utilise the code of civil law and federal law as well as improve the common law principles, where the judges are important to handle the cases of corporate homicide and manslaughters and make decision after identifying he liable corporations.
As per the above discussion, there are several issues associated with the common law system and civil law activities in both the countries UK and USA, for which the cases become a lengthy process. Prosecution is also a complex task for the police and investigating officers in the cases of corporate homicide, where it is difficult for them to identify the liable corporations or person due to lack of personhood and transparency in data management. Hence, it is beneficial for the overall law and legislative system of the countries, UK and USA to manage their activities and make the system faster to give justice to the victims. In this regard, it is essential for the court and judges to focus on common law in order to make effective judgements apart from the existing law and rules as per the civil law. The criminal law is also mandatory to be executed in this case if corporate homicide, so that it would be possible or the investigating agency to identify the liable corporations who create the situation leading to person’s death. Hence, both the civil and common law must be executed efficiently for prosecuting the corporations liable for the situation of corporate homicide and manslaughters. In addition to this, as per the law structure, and court activities, the judgement become a lengthy process, which is one of the major issue that the victims are suffering from getting their justice. Hence, it is crucial for the judges and court as well as the investigating agencies to cooperate with each other and prosecute the corporations, liable for the situation of person’s death. Hereby, through internal collaboration and communication among the police officers and the investigating agency, it is important to provide the report to the judges of the court so that they can make decision for giving justice to the victims. Hence, through change management in the overall law system and systematic process improvement are essential, for changing the legislative activities to give justice to the victims.
On the other hand, it is essential for the organisation to ensure transcriptions so that the police officers and investigating agencies can gather audio and video record footage of the accidents. In this regard, the corporations must be cooperative with the investigating agencies and it is essential to change the perspective of involving the cooperation in the investigation process. The investigating officers make it obvious that the corporations and senior management are liable for participating in the investment process with effective transcriptions. It is one of the important act through which the corporations can be involved and the senior management team are investigated through cross questions with effective proof. Hence, the overall law system must be changed ethically, with involvement of the corporations, continuous hearing and pre-trial within continuous time interval as well as involvement of the organisational head and the victims in order to investigate the case critically. It is also necessary to implement fire Safety Regulations, Human Rights Act 1999, as well as the Health and safety Act at Workplace 1974, in rider to maintain business ethics and employment contracts successfully. All the corporations are informed to maintain ethical approach and duty of care towards each employee and the clients, who are using their products and services. Hence, the overall law system of the countries must be changed with fast movement and prosecution of the case so that it would not be a lengthy process and the court and judges can make decision in giving justice to the victims. Digital data management and transcription handling are also necessary of the investigating officers so that they can help the judges to make the final decision by executing the common law of the countries. To avoid future accidents of corporate homicide and manslaughters, the government of the country must provide the duty of care and influence the companies to execute Company Act 1985 to ensure ethical practices at the workplace and avoid gross breach.
Bridger, Eamonn, et al. "Intimate partner homicide in England and Wales 2011–2013: Pathways to prediction from multi-agency domestic homicide reviews." Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing 1.2 (2017): 93-104.
Brookman, Fiona, Edward R. Maguire, and Mike Maguire, eds. The handbook of homicide. Wiley Blackwell, 2017.
Brookman, Fiona, Edward R. Maguire, and Mike Maguire, eds. The handbook of homicide. Wiley Blackwell, (2017).
Campbell, Liz. "Corporate liability and the criminalisation of failure." Law and Financial Markets Review 12.2 (2018): 57-70.
Chasani, Muchammad. "Corporate Criminal Liability in Indonesia on the Perspective of Comparison." IJCLS (Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Studies) 2.2 (2017): 144-154.
Clough, Jonathan. "Improving the effectiveness of corporate criminal liability: Old challenges in a transnational world." NEW DIRECTIONS (2017): 163.
Cunneen, Chris, and Amanda Porter. "Indigenous peoples and criminal justice in Australia." The Palgrave handbook of Australian and New Zealand criminology, crime and justice. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2017. 667-682.
Fairbairn, Jordan, Peter Jaffe, and Myrna Dawson. "Challenges in defining domestic homicide: Considerations for research and practice." Domestic homicides and death reviews. Palgrave Macmillan, London, (2017). 201-228.
Farrell, Michael. Criminology of homicidal poisoning: offenders, victims and detection. Springer, (2017).
Field, Sarah. "The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and Human Rights, Part I: has universal legal protection of the right to life been advanced?." International Company and Commercial Law Review 30.7 (2019): 369-379.
Grenfell expert witness is father of council's head of fire safety. (The Guardian, 2021b)
Hooper, Lucy. "Are Corporations Free to Kill? Rethinking the Law on Corporate Manslaughter to Better Reflect the Artificial Legal Existence of Corporations." (2019).
Investors sell off shares in Grenfell Tower insulation firm Kingspan. (The Guardian, 2021a)
Jia, Andrea Yunyan, et al. "Institutional logics of processing safety in production: The case of heat stress management in a megaproject in Australia." Safety Science 120 (2019): 388-401.
Jones, Lucy. "Criminal legislation: the corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide act 2007." When Business Kills: The Emerging Crime of Corporate Manslaughter. Business Expert Press, (2017).
Nelson, Lawrence. "Provider conscientious refusal of abortion, obstetrical emergencies, and criminal homicide law." The American Journal of Bioethics 18.7 (2018): 43-50.
Nelson, Lawrence. "Provider conscientious refusal of abortion, obstetrical emergencies, and criminal homicide law." The American Journal of Bioethics 18.7 (2018): 43-50.
Parsons, Simon. "The corporate manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 ten years on: fit for purpose?." The Journal of Criminal Law 82.4 (2018): 305-310.
Perez, Pablo A., Issaka E. Ndekugri, and Nii A. Ankrah. "A Critical Review of Convictions of Construction Industry Organisations Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act." Joint CIB W099 & TG59 International Safety, Health, and People in Construction Conference. 2017.
Roach, Jason, et al. "Cognitive and emotional stressors of child homicide investigations on UK and Danish police investigators." Homicide studies 22.3 (2018): 296-320.
Roper, Victoria. "The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007—A 10-Year Review." The Journal of Criminal Law 82.1 (2018): 48-75.
Ryder, Nicholas. "‘Too Scared to Prosecute and Too Scared to Jail?’A Critical and Comparative Analysis of Enforcement of Financial Crime Legislation Against Corporations in the USA and the UK." The Journal of Criminal Law 82.3 (2018): 245-263.
Six key factors in the failure of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment. (Apps, P., 2020)
Slapper, Gary. "Corporate Homicide, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Human Rights." The Handbook of Homicide (2017): 213-230.
Smalley, Alice Louise. Representations of Crime, Justice, and Punishment in the Popular Press: A Study of the Illustrated Police News, 1864-1938. Open University (United Kingdom), 2017.
Tombs, Steve. "The UK’s corporate killing law: Un/fit for purpose?." Criminology & Criminal Justice 18.4 (2018): 488-507.
Treatment Of Grenfell Residents’ ‘Prophetic Complaints’ A Disgrace, Sadiq Khan Says' (The Independent,
Tugendhat, Michael. Liberty Intact: Human Rights in English Law. Oxford University Press, 2017.
Whyte, David. "The autonomous corporation: The acceptable mask of capitalism." King's Law Journal 29.1 (2018): 88-110.
It is observed that students are not able to pull out the task of completing their dissertation, so in that scenario, they prefer taking the help of the Dissertation Writer, who provides the best and top-notch Essay Writing Service and Thesis Writing Services to them. All the Dissertation Samples are cost-effective for the students. You can place your order and experience amazing services.
DISCLAIMER : The dissertation help samples showcased on our website are meant for your review, offering a glimpse into the outstanding work produced by our skilled dissertation writers. These samples serve to underscore the exceptional proficiency and expertise demonstrated by our team in creating high-quality dissertations. Utilise these dissertation samples as valuable resources to enrich your understanding and enhance your learning experience.