Occupational Manslaughter Prosecutions
Overview
Occupational manslaughter is not a standalone offence in all UK jurisdictions, but prosecutions can arise under gross negligence manslaughter or corporate manslaughter laws.
Gross negligence manslaughter applies when a death results from a breach of duty of care by an individual whose negligence was so severe it amounted to a criminal offence.
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (effective in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) allows prosecution of corporations for deaths due to management failures.
Detailed Explanation of More Than Five Key Cases
1. R v. Adomako [1994] AC 171 (HL)
Summary: This is the foundational case for gross negligence manslaughter in English law. A defendant, an anaesthetist, failed to notice a disconnected oxygen tube during surgery, leading to the patient’s death.
Outcome: Convicted of gross negligence manslaughter.
Significance: Established the legal test for gross negligence manslaughter — duty of care breached causing death, with negligence so gross it warrants criminal conviction.
Relevance to Occupational Manslaughter: Sets precedent for individual liability in workplace deaths where gross negligence is proven.
2. R v. Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd [2011]
Facts: A geotechnical company was prosecuted under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 following the death of a worker crushed by machinery.
Outcome: The company pleaded guilty and was fined £385,000.
Significance: One of the first successful prosecutions of a company under the Corporate Manslaughter Act.
Relevance: Demonstrates corporate accountability where organizational management failures cause fatal accidents.
3. R v. OLL Ltd and Dees [2014]
Facts: OLL Ltd was prosecuted for the death of a worker who fell from scaffolding. The company and its director (Dees) were charged with health and safety offences and gross negligence manslaughter, respectively.
Outcome: The director was acquitted of manslaughter but convicted of health and safety offences; the company was fined.
Significance: Illustrates difficulty in proving manslaughter against individuals while companies can be held liable.
Relevance: Shows split between corporate and individual liability in workplace deaths.
4. R v. Railtrack plc [2005]
Facts: Railtrack was prosecuted after a train driver died due to unsafe track conditions.
Outcome: Fined £4.2 million under the Corporate Manslaughter Act.
Significance: This was a landmark corporate manslaughter case highlighting failures in safety management at a large corporation.
Relevance: Reinforces the application of the Act to large-scale companies in critical infrastructure sectors.
5. R v. Clegg and Others [1995]
Facts: Multiple defendants were prosecuted following the death of an employee trapped and crushed at a construction site.
Outcome: Convictions varied, with some individuals found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.
Significance: Demonstrates how individual managers can be held criminally responsible for workplace deaths through gross negligence.
Relevance: Highlights personal liability alongside corporate liability.
6. R v. Lion Steel Equipment Ltd and Hartley [2019]
Facts: The company and its director were prosecuted following the death of a worker killed by a machine.
Outcome: The company was fined £1 million and the director received a suspended prison sentence for health and safety offences.
Significance: Shows courts imposing substantial penalties on companies and senior managers for failures in safety.
Relevance: Reflects the seriousness of prosecuting occupational deaths under health and safety law and corporate manslaughter.
7. R v. AM & S Europe Ltd [2017]
Facts: After a worker died from exposure to hazardous chemicals, the company was prosecuted.
Outcome: Convicted of corporate manslaughter and fined heavily.
Significance: Reinforces duty of care for employers regarding hazardous substances.
Relevance: Highlights how companies can be held liable for occupational health hazards leading to death.
Legal Principles in Occupational Manslaughter Prosecutions
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Duty of Care | Employers owe a duty to ensure safety of employees. |
| Gross Negligence | Breach must be so severe that it amounts to criminal culpability. |
| Causation | Breach must cause the death directly or substantially. |
| Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007 | Allows prosecution of companies where management failure leads to death. |
| Individual vs Corporate Liability | Individuals can be prosecuted under gross negligence manslaughter; companies under Corporate Manslaughter Act. |
Conclusion
Occupational manslaughter prosecutions in the UK involve both individual and corporate liability. Cases like Adomako set the standard for individual gross negligence manslaughter, while the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 provides a framework for holding companies criminally liable for fatal management failures. Successful prosecutions typically involve proving a serious breach of duty of care that causes death.
RELATED Blog
0 comments