GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER
Mr. Peter Eaton, the sole director of the company, has been also charged with the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter, and with a breach of Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HWSA).
Kate Leonard, reviewing lawyer at the CPS Special Crime Division, said:
"Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 an organisation is guilty of corporate manslaughter if the way in which its activities are managed or organised causes a death and amounts to a gross breach of a duty of care to the person who died.”
"A substantial part of the breach must have been in the way activities were organised by senior management.”
"I have concluded that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction for this offence."
Aside from the corporate offence, the company has also been charged with a failure to discharge its general duties under Section 2 of the HWSA, which requires employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of employees.
LOSS OF FUTURE AND CURRENT WORK CONTRACTS
The reputational damage associated with a conviction for corporate manslaughter is arguably the greatest deterrent to companies, and perhaps the most important aspect of this case will be whether, if convicted, the company is made subject to the “publicity order” provided for in the 2007 Act. A publicity order will require a company to advertise their conviction and the penalty imposed. Of course, with or without a publicity order, there will almost always be a great deal of publicity surrounding any conviction for Corporate Manslaughter, as can be seen from the press coverage to date of the case against Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings.
WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THOSE OF US WHO TEACH PHYSICAL RESTRAINT OR THOSE OF US WHO COMMISSION RESTRAINT TRAINING?
1.Failure to take positive steps to promote and preserve the right to life can, on the basis of this case, now result in a company and it’s Directors being charged with offences under the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act 2007.
2. This is more likely going to occur to small to medium sized organisations where a direct link to the ‘controlling mind’ of the company can be established.
3. The effect of any such prosecution can not only result in a reasonably large fine, but also in a prison sentence for any director charged with ‘Gross Negligence Manslaughter’.
4. In addition, the organisation will have to publicly advertise the fact that it has been convicted in line with the new legislation.
NFPS TRAINING IS STRUCTURED TO PRESERVE LIFE!
In our training we have carried out thorough assessments of risk aimed precisely at reducing the risk of loss of life. This is not only consistent with the requirements of the Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007, but also Health and Safety statute and also Human Rights Legislation.
DON’T SEEK COMPLIANCE BY SEEKING ACCREDITATION!
A point to bear in mind for anyone thinking of either commissioning or delivering training is will the skills, techniques and strategies taught be sufficient enough to demonstrate that they are designed by implementation to reduce the risk of loss of life. If not it doesn’t matter what badge the provider wears or who they are ‘accredited’ by.
The Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act doesn’t require proof of ‘accreditation’, it demands that employers take steps to preserve life.
NEXT NFPS / BTEC RESTRAINT & BREAKAWAY INSTRUCTORS QUALIFYING COURSE.......
