header-logo header-logo

16 August 2007 / Gerard Forlin
Issue: 7286 / Categories: Opinion , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

Worth the wait?

Ten years of wrangling have failed to settle the corporate manslaughter debate, says Gerard Forlin

After more than a decade of wrangling, bartering, debate and delay, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (CMCHA 2007) finally received Royal Assent on 26 July 2007. It will be brought into force by secondary legislation on 6 April 2008.

It has not previously been possible to pierce the corporate veil and successfully “convict” a large- or medium-sized organisation. With the advent of CMCHA 2007, it is highly likely that such organisations will now be realistically in the telescopic sights of the prosecution agencies after April 2008. In theory, CMCHA 2007 will not change the law regarding the prosecution of individuals (who are increasingly being imprisoned following conviction for manslaughter). The reality is, however, that as police investigations increase, more individuals will be caught up in the process, resulting in more arrests and more convictions.

CMCHA 2007 permits the jury to review the corporate culture inside an organisation and its general attitude to safety enforcement and control

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

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