clapham rail disaster corporate manslaughter clapham rail disaster corporate manslaughter

Act 1974,[28] there was no prosecution for manslaughter. The requirement for a duty of care to be found also drew criticism because of what Gobert describes as its dubious relevance, as it is fairly obvious that companies ought not to kill people in ordinary circumstances. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. In finding no case to answer for the corporate manslaughter charges against Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Justice Coulson clarifies that a gross breach would need to reprehensible [or] atrocious in the context of a gross negligence manslaughter. ) Officers investigating the death of a man in Lambeth have charged a man with murder. Corporate manslaughter, which seeks to make company employees criminally culpable for serious wrongdoing, is notoriously difficult to prove. Railway historian Adrian Vaughan suggests this may not be the best way of handling faulty signals. Thursday 25 October 2001 00:00. [16] The re-wiring had been done a few weeks previously, but the fault had only developed the previous day when equipment had been moved and the loose and uninsulated wire had created a false feed to a relay. Others are directors and managers who represent the directing mind and will of the company, and control what it does. However, after an eight-month Old Bailey trial in 2005, Balfour Beatty was fined 10m for breaching health and safety regulations (later reduced to 7.5m). Firstly, in the identification of the particular layer of management that can be described as senior, but also in the fact that those managers must play a significant role in the formulation and/or implementation of organisational policy and their role is a substantial element if the breach of duty that leads to the death of another. Corporate manslaughter is a criminal offence committed by corporations, companies, or organizations. This section of the Channel 4 news finds Peter Sissons updating viewers on the day's tragic events at the Clapham Junction rail crash. , Lucy Pasha-Robinson Grenfell: Police say they have reasonable grounds to suspect Kensington council and TMO committed corporate manslaughter The Independent Accessed 18th March 2018, Christopher Sargeant, Two Steps Forward, One Step Back The Cautionary Tale of The Corporate Manslaughter And Corporate Homicide Act 2007, UK Law Student Review Page 13 April 2012, Accessed 18th March 2018, Chris Cook, How Flammable Cladding gets approved BBC News < http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40465399> accessed 31st March 2018, Estuko L, Piercing the Corporate Veil: Assessing the Effectiveness of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 Ten Years On, Cambridge Union Law Society (2017), Field S & Jones L, Five Years On: The Impact of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 Plus a change? He made complaint to an Inspector of Weights and Measures resulting in prosecution and a fine of 25 and costs. There have been other acquittals for Corporate Manslaughter including in R v PS and JE Ward which demonstrates the difference in the standards expected by Health and Safety legislation and the burden of proof, beyond all reasonable doubt, for corporate manslaughter. Earlier this month, survivors of the Paddington rail disaster criticised the decision not to prosecute anyone for manslaughter over the crash which killed 31 people. Gobert writes: Further, through its requirement that persons who play a significant role in the formulation and/or implementation of organisation policy be shown to have made a substantial contribution to the corporate offence, the Act threatens to perpetuate the same evidentiary stumbling blocks that frustrated prosecutions under the identification doctrine., In commenting on the draft bill in 2005, Clarkson noted that the requirement of identifying senior managers threatens to open the door to endless argument in court as to whether certain persons do or do not constitute senior managers.. 4, p. 307. On the morning of 12 December 1988, a crowded passenger train crashed into the rear of another train that had stopped at a signal, just south of Clapham Junction railway station in London, and subsequently sideswiped an empty train travelling in the opposite direction. Why has there been only a single charge of corporate manslaughter (against P & O European The identification doctrine only allows for an individual to be found guilty of corporate manslaughter and this is evident in s1(3) of the act because the conviction will not be made unless an individual, part of the senior management, is found guilty. British Rail was fined 250,000 for violations of health and safety law in connection with the accident. The period from December 1988 to August 1989 saw the Clapham rail crash, the Lockerbie air disaster, the Kegworth air crash, the Hillsborough stadium disaster and the Thames riverboat. Unable to stop at the signal, he stopped his train at the next signal and then reported to the signal box by means of a line-side telephone. They should have made sure adequate and safe signalling was in place to prevent any danger to the passengers onboard their trains. read full story Sir Martin Moore-Bick, heading the Inquiry, indicated he would not shrink from making findings or recommendations on the grounds that criminal charges might be brought. A 1978 British Rail Southern Region report had concluded that due to the age of the equipment the re-signalling was needed by 1986. In this paper, I will critically evaluate the law relating to corporate manslaughter and consider whether any difficulties may arise if criminal prosecutions ensue by looking at the development of the law, a critical analysis of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (CMCHA 2007) and an application of this analysis the Grenfell Tower fire. The accident took 35 lives and nearly 500 were injured. Another 415 sustained minor injuries. However, the corporate manslaughter case failed because the various acts of negligence could not be attributed to any individual who was a "controlling mind". The collision was the result of a signal failure caused by a wiring fault. One case exists of the prosecution of a larger company: CAV Aerospace. However, approval was given in 1984 after a report of three wrong-side signal failures. At least 57 people died when two trains collided near the city of Larissa early Wednesday. Dedan Simmons, 39 (09.04.83), of Clapham Road, SW9, was charged on Thursday, 2 March. The Law Commission report Legislating The Criminal Code, Involuntary Manslaughter highlights several high profile disasters including; the Kings Cross Underground Station fire, The Piper Alpha Oil Platform disaster, the Clapham rail crash and the Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy as examples of situations in which inquiries had found corporate bodies at fault but no successful prosecution for manslaughter had been brought. The Clapham disaster was also quoted when a new law on corporate manslaughter was introduced in 2007. Mr Kite was found guilty because he was directly in charge of the activity centre where the children were staying. He picked up the receiver and spoke to the signalman, informing him of the collision and asking him to call the emergency services. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act was introduced in 2007 and came into force on 6th April 2008 providing a more effective means for prosecuting the worst corporate failures to manage health and safety properly.. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. It would need to be proven that there was knowledge by management of the risks imposed by flammable cladding (which is legal to install and there is no particular industry consensus to its danger) that was ignored and it was unreasonable to do so. If charges of corporate manslaughter are brought in the case of the Hatfield rail crash it will be only the sixth time such a case has come before a court. The Clapham Junction rail crash, which involved a collision of three trains in December 1988, is one case which resulted in no one being found guilty of corporate manslaughter. For any company of any size, protecting the health and safety of employees or members of the public who may be affected by its activities is an essential part of risk management and must be led by the company board. Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1971] UKHL 1, Bolton (Engineering) Co. v Graham [1957] 1 Q-B.159, R v Jackson Transport (Ossett) Ltd (1996) (unreported), R v Lion Steel Equipment Ltd, Manchester Crown Court (unreported). Critically evaluate the current law relating to corporate manslaughter. *You can also browse our support articles here >. In that incident, a pair of redundant points had been left in an unsafe condition and undetectable by the signalling system. A secondary issue is the application of civil law in criminal prosecutions. A company can be made into a corporation by Royal Charter, by an Act of Parliament or by the procedure established under the Companies Acts 1985, 1989 and 2006. The act says: A relevant duty of care, in relation to an organisation, means any of the following duties owed by it under the law of negligence and goes on to list a number of different duties. Gobert J, The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 Thirteen years in the making but was it worth the wait? The Modern Law Review (2008). It said in order to convict a company, individual defendants who could be identified with the firm would themselves have to be guilty of manslaughter. Related articles Train derailment because of landslide leaves 10 injured [22] Cab radios, linking driver and signalman, were recommended[23] and to begin installing public address system on existing trains that were not expected to be withdrawn within five years. The commission said if, for example, development of safety monitoring was not the responsibility of a particular group or individual within a company, then "it becomes almost impossible to identify the 'directing mind' for whose shortcomings the company was liable". This is because he had a duty of care towards other ships on the river, as well as his own, and the passengers upon all of the ships. June 15, 2022 . 2.3.4. It was against this backdrop that the Law Commission proposed new legislation to reform the offence of Corporate Manslaughter which was enacted in The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? However the criminal law and the civil laws have different aims. Some of the people in the company are mere servants and agents who are nothing more than hands to do the work and cannot be said to represent the mind or will. The Clapham Junction railway crash occurred on the morning of 12 December 1988, when a crowded British Rail passenger train crashed into the rear of another train that had stopped at a signal just south of Clapham Junction railway station in London, England, and subsequently sideswiped an empty train travelling in the opposite direction. [31], In 2017, a Rail Accident Investigation Branch report into a serious irregularity at Cardiff Central on 29 December 2016 revealed that some of the lessons from the Clapham Junction accident appeared to have been forgotten. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. This decision could be said to be wrong and the company should have been convicted of corporate manslaughter as there had been a breach of the duty of care the company owed to its employees. These included the Kings Cross underground fire, in which 31 people died, and the Clapham rail crash, which claimed the lives of 35 people. If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on LawTeacher.net then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Info: 2132 words (9 pages) Essay Whether or not a duty of care is owed is a question of law to be decided by a judge, not a jury, but its requirement has drawn academic criticism. The collision was the deadliest rail accident in the country's history. 13. On the morning of 12 December 1988, a crowded passenger train crashed into the rear of another train that had stopped at a signal, just south of Clapham Junction railway station in London, and subsequently sideswiped an empty train travelling in the opposite direction. Under the government's proposals, a new test of liability would be the failure of the company to do everything practicable to prevent accidents. As of 1999, the rule book had not been changed. SHE TRAVELLED THE WORLD TO FIND HERSELF . Neither the Clapham rail disaster nor the Paddington rail crash resulted in convictions for corporate manslaughter. Gobert notes that between the Law Commission recommendations and the Home Office consultation document neither contained this requirement. [11] Work associated with the Waterloo Area Resignalling Scheme meant new wiring had been installed,[12] but the old wiring had been left connected at one end, and loose and uninsulated at the other. Joseph Stoddart, manager of the St Alban's centre in Lyme Regis, was found not guilty of the same charges after the jury failed to reach a verdict. 11 The new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 c. 19 which also applies to police forces and gov-ernmental departments [Art. In 1996 the collision was one of the events cited by the Law Commission as reason for new law on manslaughter, resulting in the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. News reports state that at least 60 companies have been involved in working on Grenfell adding to the complexity of the investigation and finally the remedies available to the court are only that of a fine, which against a Local Authority may only remove money from the very people who need it most given that the sentencing council suggests that compensation, in general, ought to be left to the civil courts. Hidden Report Investigation into the Clapham Junction Railway Accident (London: HMSO 1989). Following Cotswold Geotechnical's landmark 385,000 fine on Thursday for corporate manslaughter we take a look back at five key cases. Once a corporation is created they are given a separate legal personality. Clapham Rail Disaster (1988) 65 2.3.5. A jury can also consider secondary factors as listed in 8(3). In contrast to the existing position in England and Wales where the Crown Prosecution Service have sole authority to bring corporate manslaughter proceedings it is proposed that the Health and Safety Executive would be empowered to investigate and prosecute the new offences in addition to the CPS. Piper Alpha is another case which involved no conviction of corporate manslaughter and lead to the questioning and suitability of the common law in place. TrendRadars. This analysis written in 2018 is an example of my distinction level research in my law degree. [19], Critical of the health and safety culture within British Rail at the time,[19] Hidden recommended that unused signal wires needed to be cut back and insulated, and that a testing plan be in place, with the inspection and testing being done by an independent person. Therefore, it could be argued that a political gesture was offered when the act was created. Department of Transport; Clapham Junction Railway Accident Inquiry. It is important, however to look at the effect of this test 10 years on from the legislation. Investigation into the Clapham Junction Railway Accident, (Sessional Papers, House of Commons, Cm 499, 1988/9) Cm 8201989 Video publications referred to in MT 143/2 and MT 143/14 are held by the National Film and Television Archive. Corporate manslaughter - NESHEP 03 12 13 Dec. 17, 2013 2 likes 1,035 views Download Now Download to read offline Education Health & Medicine Business Presentation by Andrew Swan of Short Richardson & Forth LLP at our main meeting on 3rd December 2013 Alan Bassett Follow Compliance Specialist & Chairman at North East SHE Partnership