header-logo header-logo

14 November 2025 / Tom McNeill
Issue: 8139 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Fraud , Bribery , Company , Compliance , Risk management
printer mail-detail

Getting corporates in the dock

235678
The senior manager test—as set out in the Crime and Policing Bill—prioritises deterrence over strict legal fairness, writes Tom McNeill
  • The Crime and Policing Bill includes a senior manager test, making organisations criminally liable for offences committed by senior managers while acting within their authority.
  • This would expand corporate liability for many offences beyond principles that required proof of direct corporate fault.
  • The change reflects a broader shift towards treating corporate culture as culpable, prioritising deterrence and ease of prosecution over fairness or consistency.

The Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently working its way through the UK Parliament, has its fair share of critics—and not without good reason.

The Bill includes a provision to make organisations criminally liable for any offence committed by a senior manager while acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority—the senior manager test. Various commentators have pointed out the unfairness that could arise by not including an ‘intending to benefit the organisation’ provision.

What if

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll