COMPANIES: CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER CASES

(A) R v Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd (2011) The first company to be convicted under the Corporate Manslaughter Act (2007) was Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd, following the death of an employee. Alexander Wright was a 27-year- old geologist who had been investigating soil conditions at the bottom of a 3.5m-deep trial pit on a construction site. A trial pit is dug before the construction of a building begins in order to test the geology and water table of the site. The jury heard that the walls of the pit were unsupported by timbers, and that soil had collapsed into it, resulting in the suffocation of the employee. The prosecution’s case was that the company had failed to take all reasonably practicable steps to protect the employee from an unsafe system of work in digging trial pits which were unnecessarily dangerous, and that it had ignored well-recognised industry guidelines that forbade entry into excavations more than 1.2m deep. The employee had also been left alone and unsupervised by the company’s director, who had gone home for the day. To obtain a conviction the prosecution needed to demonstrate that (i) the company’s conduct had caused the employee’s death and amounted to a gross breach of its duty of care, and (ii) a substantial element of the breach was in the way in which the company’s senior management had managed or organised its activities.

The jury returned a guilty verdict and the company was fined £385,000, payable in annual instalments of £38,500 over a period of ten years. The last set of accounts filed by the company at Companies House before the trial revealed an annual turnover of around £330,000. In handing down the sentence the judge said: “It may well be that the fine in the terms of its payment will put this company into liquidation. If that is the case it’s unfortunate but unavoidable. But it’s a consequence of the serious breach.”

(B) R v Princes Sporting Club (2013) This case relates to the death of Mari-Simon Cronje, aged 11, who went to the sporting club as part of a friend’s birthday celebrations. The organised activities included the children riding on large inflatable banana boats that were towed across a lake by speedboats. Mari-Simon fell from an inflatable and despite the efforts of nearby parents to warn the driver, he failed to notice. The little girl was killed when the boat ran over her.

The court accepted in full evidence submitted by the club’s Health and Safety Co-ordinator that the directors had been given a comprehensive list of pre-accident concerns which included the fact that the driver of the speedboat had no recognised qualifications and that safety helmets were not provided for the children. It concluded that there was a general “lax attitude” to safety at the club. Tragically, these concerns were not acted upon. This case makes it clear that where specific issues are raised as part of a company’s health and safety audit, those issues must be acted upon as a priority. If a company fails to act and there is a health and safety incident involving issues raised in the audit, the failure to address these points will very likely be used by the prosecution as part of its case to prove the criminal offence of corporate manslaughter.

The judge in this case put forward the view that under certain circumstances it is acceptable to put a company out of business by imposing a fine that amounts to the entirety of a company’s assets. He said “I propose to fine this defendant company every penny that it has. I have no power to do anything other than impose a fine and I can impose no more than all of its assets.”

One of the significant aspects of this case is that the judge made a Publicity Order. The Corporate Manslaughter Act states that the court may require a company convicted of corporate manslaughter to publicise in a specified manner: (i) the fact that it has been convicted of the offence; (ii) specified particulars of the offence; (iii) the amount of any fine imposed and (iv) the terms of any Remedial Order made. This can include an instruction to advertise these facts in a local newspaper or to display the information on the company’s website.