essay- corporate liability.doc

8/10/2019 essay- corporate liability.doc

1/14

Making corporations liable for criminal offences involves greaterdifficulty attached to it than would first appear to be the case.

Discuss with reference to corporate criminal liability generally butalso with reference to the particular offence of manslaughter and anyproposals for reforms of this area of the law.

_______________________________________________________________________

It is widely believed that the existence of corporations can eitherenhance the employment opportunities living standards and !uality oflife of people or undermine them. It has been contemplated and debatedin recent times that changing industrial activities evidences thenecessity of regulation. "hese profit minded entities have causedsignificant public harm and deaths but have always been pardoned by thecourts and the government. #ence these corporations continue to carryon their business with little interference from the law. "his documentwill discuss some of the problems underlying the $% approach towardscorporate criminal liability. &urthermore it will analyse the law

governing corporate manslaughter and highlight some of the difficultiesencountered in attributing liability to corporations for criminalconduct. ' company should be criminally liable when it has organised itsbusiness in such a way that persons and property are exposed tounreasonable and unnecessary dangers. #owever this has not been thecase in the $% due to the stringent approach of the (udges. "hey havebeen very cautious in developing the common law relating to corporatemanslaughter and have left the matter for the legislatures to lookafter. "he document will look at the general perception of the existinglaw and recommend changes to the current structure. It is time torecognise that criminal law is needed in order to deter corporatedeviance that can lead to significant public harm and deaths. )

"he view held by most academics as supported by research publicin!uiries law suits and media attention on deviance and law breaking bycorporation indicates that companies often deliberately and sometimesrepeatedly break the law. "o achieve their targeted profits oftencorporations fail to manage the risk and engage in activities thatcauses immense harm both financially and in terms of loss of life andlimb. *If caught the likelihood of a prosecution is remote theprospects for a conviction if there is a prosecution are not promisingand the sanctions following the infre!uent conviction can be derisory.+ ,It is widely believed that most governments have been less than fullycommitted in combating corporate wrongdoing. -romoting corporations isone of the areas that every government attends to and to penalise themfor their wrongdoing could affect their liaison and economic growth.&urthermore until the recent past the general public also had littleinterest in this area. orporations were widely perceived as a benefitfor the community and their actions were largely ignored and disregardedeven when it caused loss to the general public. /verlooking corporatecrime until recently has demonstrated the need for urgent reform as

1 Gobert, J., Corporate Killing at Home and Abroad Reflections on the Government Proposals, .!.R.,"#$$#%, 11& Jan, at pg &$.# 'ee generall( Gobert, J ) P*nch, +,. Rethin ing Corporate Crime, "#$$-%, *tter/orths0 e is 2e is,ondon.


2/14

the world has realised that the effects of corporate crimes are moreharmful more costly more extensive and more debilitating than thosewhich follow from street crimes which has been the main focus to curb bymany governments till today. 0

It is contemplated that the real difficulty in attributing criminalliability is caused by the fact that we are too wedded to thetraditional notions of criminal law when we are trying to imposecriminal liability on companies. Instead we should look at the companyfor what it is an abstraction and examine ways in which it might bepossible to hold corporations accountable for crimes which have arisen.' company as a legal abstraction is reliant on its agent and employeesto perform the actions that a natural person would perform. 's such acompany might be vicariously liable for the torts that its agent committhrough the operation of ordinary tort law. In general it is relativelystraight forward to determine when a company will be liable for the tortof its agent. If one can determine that the agent had authority tocommit a particular act and furthermore that the tort was committed inthe course of the company+s business then the company will be liable. 1

#owever the controversial issue is that of a company+s liability forcrimes. Most offences have two elements2 the actus reus and mens rea."he company as a legal abstraction cannot commit either of these itself./nce again its agent must commit the act and have the mental elementre!uired to satisfy liability. 's we shall see this has caused greatdifficulty for the law and has rendered it extremely difficult toachieve a successful prosecution for many crimes particularly where theacts or omissions of a company have killed someone. 3

's a general principle a company should bear responsibility foroutcomes that follow from the way that it conducts its businessoperation. 4hen those outcomes are criminal then the company should becriminally liable. It has been simple to attribute criminal liability tothe company where a statutory offence gives rise to vicarious liabilityon the part of a company for the acts of its employees. 5 6uch liabilitymay arise even where the employee in the course of its employment actscontrary to the instructions or company policy. 7 "he other method ofattributing criminal liability is by the identification doctrine. "hisdoctrine as we will see has caused a lot of problems and theunderlying idea behind the concept has been severely criticised.$ntil recently it was not clear whether a company could be charged forany offence which re!uires proof of mens rea. 8 "he traditional approachdrew a distinction between the hands and mind of the company. It wascontemplated in 9ennards arrying o 9td : that a company cannot beguilty of any crime which re!uires a significant mental element unless

- 'ee generall( Gobert, J ) P*nch, +,. Rethin ing Corporate Crime, "#$$-%, *tter/orths0 e is 2e is,ondon.

3 As per *tler0 'loss .J in 4rotman v 2orth 5or shire Co*nt( Co*ncil, "166&% 78CA Civ 1#$& at para19.: 'ee generall( R v P ) ; #9 Hannigan, ., Compan( a/, "#$$-%, e is 2e is0 *tter/orths, ondon, at pg 61.> Re '*ppl( of Read( +i ed Concrete "2o #%, =irector General of $:.


3/14

the directors technically the mind of the company are aware andsanction the commission of the crime. 4ith the passage of time andchanging industrial activities now involving greater risk for theemployees and the general public it was thought necessary to strictlyabide by safety standards and any offence committed with a criminalstate of mind by an employee should be attributed to the company *wherethe circumstances are such that the knowledge and intention of theemployee must be attributed to the body corporate+. ); D/- v %ent #% AC 1:- at pg 1>1.13 Gobert, J. @Corporate Criminalit(


4/14


5/14

academic agenda by a series of much2publicised transportation and other?disasters? most of which were followed by public in!uiries blaming thecompanies operating the various activities+. ,0 "he topic has attractedsignificant attention in the $% in recent years. It has been reportedthat since ):5: there have been )8 )3) persons killed at work without asingle conviction of a company for an offence of homicide. ,1 "hedifficulty in holding a company criminally accountable for the harmcaused continues to vex the >nglish (udiciary. ,3 Despite numerousattempts to curb corporate wrongdoing by applying conventional criminallaw to companies not a single existing corporate has been prosecuted.@udicial ob(ections have been procedural historical and pragmatic. ,5"heir stringent approach with regards to corporate crime have come underintense criticism and rightly so. 9egislative and (udicial changes havebeen desired expected and discussed by the government media and inparticular by the victims of corporate wrongdoing. It is important tolook at a few important cases that have aroused interest and highlightedthe need for change as these exposed the fragilities in the common law.

"he issue was raised in the modern context initially by the decision in

= v - < / &erries 9td.,7

"he capsiAe of the ferry causing considerableloss of lives and the failure to obtain a conviction in the subse!uentprosecution was the initial prompt to much of the interest in thistopic. @udges adhered to the traditional approach of identification andaffirmed that a corporate would only be guilty of manslaughter if itcould be shown that the actions in !uestion were from one of the mindsof the company. onversely the prosecution in this case attempted toargue that defendants could be guilty if the acts and mental states ofmore than one individual within the company were aggregated in order toestablish the re!uired degree of recklessness on the companyBs part. ,8"his approach known as the *aggregate model+ was re(ected by thecourts in this case and the subse!uent prosecutions. "his approachattempts to allow the acts omissions and mental states of differentpeople in the company to be added up in order to satisfy the elements ofa crime. ,: *"his allocation of responsibility is appropriate for thenegligent acts of the individuals concerned might not when looked at inisolation reach the level of gross negligence re!uired for individualcriminal liability. #owever when these individual acts of negligenceare added together they may lead a fact2finder to discern a pattern ofrecklessness or gross negligence on the part of the company+. 0; It wouldhave been possible to convict the defendant in - < / &erries had thecourts aggregated the acts and omissions of the different peopleresponsible for the catastrophe. Cut the courts thought otherwise anddismissed the aggregation approach as a possible route to corporatemanslaughter. It was contended that the defendants should not be

#- Clar son, C.+.E, @Corporate +ansla*ghter 5et more Government ProposalsB, Crim. .R. "#$$:%, 'ep, at

pg 9>>.#3 'lapper,. @Corporate +ansla*ghter An 7 amination of the determinants of Prosec*torial Polic(B, "166-%'ocial and egal 't*dies, pg 3#-0 #:.#: Gobert, J. @Corporate Criminalit(


6/14

convicted on the basis of another person+s act or omission when thecorporate has taken all viable measures to prevent such accidents. 0)*'ggregation was thus an attempt to capture more accurately the natureof corporate fault. #owever the concept did not appeal to the courtsand corporate liability based on aggregated fault died stillborn+. 0,

"he 9aw ommission were soon after referred to examine the law oncorporate manslaughter. "he ommission recommended legislation in orderto clarify and indeed extend the law by proposing a separate offence ofcorporate killing. "heir report proposed to confer corporate liabilityfor death based on management failure without invoking the agoniAingidentification doctrine. 00 It sought to overcome the problem created byidentification doctrine by proposing that *a company should be guilty ofcorporate killing when its conduct fell far below what could reasonablyhave been expected of it in the circumstances and was one of the causesof the death+. 01 "he proposals were not attended to and subse!uent casesand ac!uittals of the corporations saw the (udicial approach beingcriticised at an elevated level. ompanies were being branded as massmurderers in the eyes of the public still not much was done by the

government to embrace the victims and punish these profit mindedcorporations.

' unified voice of the public was heard again after a series of railcrashes in the mid nineties such as the 6outhall rail crash 03 whichinvolved substantial loss of life. *"he prosecution argued that if itcould show gross negligence on the part of the company it should nothave to prove that any senior official in the company was guilty ofmanslaughter as re!uired by the identification doctrine+. 05 #oweverthis view did not stir the (udges who have been very cautious up tillnow when attributing liability to the company for their crimes. "heprosecution failed again because of an inability to identify negligenceby any individual at the level of the directing mind and will of thecompany. 6adly reat 4estern =ail ompany was ac!uitted and only had topay a fine.It was thought necessary after the ac!uittal of the reat 4estern =ailfrom charges of manslaughter to re examine the law on corporatemanslaughter closely and redress the difficulties in holdingcorporations due to the identification doctrine criminallyresponsible. obert identified four possible models of fault which mightbe used to simplify the criminal liability of companies. 07 It will beuseful here to briefly discuss the models here in order to determinewhether these methods can offer a more satisfactory approach to the

-1 As per ingham, J in R v P ) ; #-# Gobert, J., Corporate Killing at Home and Abroad Reflections on the Government Proposals, .!.R.,

"#$$#%, 11& Jan, at pg >6.-- 8ells, C., Corporations and Criminal Responsibilit(, # nd edition, "#$$1%, ; ford ?niversit( Press, at pg1#--3 ?K a/ Commission Paper #->, "1669%, @ egislating the Criminal Code nvol*ntar( +ansla*ghterB at

para &.-:-: A0GBs Reference "2o # of 1666%, "#$$$% - All 7R 1.-9 Gobert, J ) +*gnai, 7., @Coping /ith Corporate Criminalit(0 'ome lessons from tal(B, "#$$#%, Criminala/ Revie/ at pg 9##.

-> 'ee generall( Gobert, J. @Corporate Criminalit(


7/14

attribution of criminal liability to companies or should we (ust stayas we are.

"he first model attempts to impose vicarious liability on the companyfor the crimes of its employees and agents. "his is the prevalentapproach in the $nited 6tates where employers are potentially liable formost crimes which occur within the course of their business operation. 08#owever the (udges in the $% have gone in the opposite direction andhave in general adhered to the view that an employer is not criminallyliable for the acts of an employee. 0: Eicarious liability has only beenimposed where in the courts opinion it was intended by the -arliamentmainly in the health and safety areas in the form of regulatoryoffences. 1; "his proposition of vicarious liability was re(ected by the9aw ommission because *it could penalise a corporation even when it hadpositively discouraged the offending activity or was unaware of it+. 1)It is arguably unfair to punish a company for a crime committed by oneits employees when far more of its employees have strivenconscientiously to prevent the crime. &urthermore the difficulty ofidentifying an individual employee is not addressed by imposing

vicarious liability and it serves only to satisfy the actus reus elementof criminal liability. "his in effect has restricted the scope ofvicarious liability to offences where liability is strict or where anemployee is performing a statutory duty on behalf of its employer. 1, "hepurpose of vicarious liability can be defeated if the employer is ableto show that he acted with due diligence and had taken all reasonablesteps to prevent the harm from occurring. "he second doctrine proposedis the identification model. "he problem attached to this doctrine hasalready been touched in this document. "he third model is known as theaggregate model which has also been discussed above. "he ommissionre(ected this method because it did not obviate the need to identify anindividual at fault and presents the same hurdle as the current law. 109astly the concept of *corporate fault+ imposes a legal duty to preventthe occurrence of an offence. It covers issues such as corporategovernance and expects corporations *to collect information regardingpotential dangers possessed by its employees collate the data andimplement policies which will prevent foreseeable risks from occurring.If the company is derelict in this duty and a crime has resulted itmust bear the responsibility+. 11 9iability through corporate faultappears to understand the underlying concern of putting ade!uatemechanisms in place in order to avoid an accident. Fo proof ofindividual liability is needed and it signifies the importance attachedto safety standards in this era.

-& bid at pg -6:.-6 bid at pg -693$ +o*sell ros v ondon and 2orth/estern R( "161>% # K &-9.31 ?K a/ Commission Paper #->, "1669%, @ egislating the Criminal Code nvol*ntar( +ansla*ghterB at

para >.#&.3# Gobert, J. @Corporate Criminalit( .#&.33 Gobert, J. @Corporate Criminalit(


8/14

Fotwithstanding the increased public concern with corporate safetystandard the ourt of 'ppeal in '2 +s =eference GFo , of ):::H 13confirmed that liability for manslaughter could only be imposed on acompany under the principle of identification. 15 "he response of thecourt in adhering to the identification doctrine was in order *to avoidthe in(ustice of imputing to the blameless company every act and stateof mind of individual employees+. 17 "he political media and publiccriticism against corporate bodies seen to be putting profits ahead ofsafety *spurred the government to bring forward a consultation paperthat resurrected the 9aw ommissionBs proposal for an offence ofcorporate killing+. 18 &ollowing the recommendations made by the 9awommission earlier the government proposed to accept the new offence ofcorporate killing. 1: &urthermore in endorsing the proposals thegovernment expressed its intention to extend the application of the newoffence beyond incorporated bodies to cover undertakings that is *anytrade or business or other activity providing employment+. 3; 'ssuggested the corporate would be guilty of killing if *a managementfailure by the corporation was the cause or one of the causes of apersonBs death and that failure constituted conduct falling far belowwhat could reasonably be expected of the corporation in the

circumstances+.3)

"he governmentBs proposal for a crime of corporate killing constitutesan important advancement in this area and marks a dramatic break fromconventional >nglish thinking on corporate crime but as we will see itis still deficient in many respects and academics have expressed theirscepticism regarding the effectiveness of the proposal. Managementfailure is as discussed above falling far below the expected standardsin the circumstances. It is not every management failure that results indeath that will render a company liable for corporate killing. "heproblem lies in ascertaining whether the conduct in !uestion isacceptable or not. /ne possible approach suggested by the 9aw ommissionwas that similar trade and industry practises must be taken intoconsideration while reviewing the reasonableness of the conduct in!uestion. 3, "he issue of classifying the *reasonable standard+ can oftencause complications as one cannot define accurately the standard givingrise to culpability. "he standards may be set by political and economicconsideration or may be is already set at too low a level. 30 "hesedifficulties were illustrated by the - < / &erries case *where itemerged that - < /Bs &erries were not alone in making cross2 hannelsailings with open bow doors. /ther companies had done the same albeit

3: "#$$$% - All 7R 1.39 'imister, A.P., ) '*llivan, G.R., Criminal a/0 4heor( ) =octrine, "#$$-%, # nd edition, Hart P*blishing0; ford, at pg #::.3> 8ells, C., Corporations and Criminal responsibilit(, # nd edition, ; ford ?niversit( Press, "#$$1%, at pg

11-3& Gobert, J ) P*nch, +,. Rethin ing Corporate Crime, "#$$-%, *tter/orths0 e is 2e is, ondon, at pg1$3.36 ?K Home ;ffice, @Reforming the a/ of nvol*tar( +ansla*ghter 4he Government ProposalsB "#$$$%.:$ bid, para -.#.#, at pg 1:.:1 ?K a/ Commission Paper #->, "1669%, @ egislating the Criminal Code nvol*ntar( +ansla*ghterB at

para &.-::# ?K a/ Commission Paper #->, "1669%, @ egislating the Criminal Code nvol*ntar( +ansla*ghterB at

para &.>.:- Griffin, '. Compan( a/, 3 th edition, "#$$9%, Pearson ongman0 ondon, at pg 1$9.


9/14

with less disastrous results. >xecutives of these other companiestestified that the risks of capsiAe were not obvious to them. It wasthis testimony in part that convinced the court to dismiss themanslaughter charges against - < / &erries+. 31 It is hard to imagine howrecognition of the ignorance of shipping executives could be allowed toset the standard of what was to be reasonably expected of a ferryoperator under the circumstances. 'lthough these transport corporationsclaim to uphold safety of their passengers as the top most priority suchignorance has prompted concern among the masses. >xcusing the corporatefor ignorance may encourage other corporations also may be in differentindustry to set a very low standard and express similar ignorance if anaccident happens. 6uch excuses are not expected to provide anyconsolation for the victims and will only aggravate the currentsituation. =ather than investigating from the executives of the sameindustry the right approach would be to in!uest whether the public weredenied a better standard in the circumstances. It is submitted that theexpectations of those in the industry should be of evidentiary relevancein answering the !uestion of accepted standards but they should not bedeterminative. 33

Fo clear line can be drawn to ascertain what the public has the rightreasonably to expect of a company in a particular industry. In =. v.'domako 35 the difficulties of formulating a precise standard werediscussed and it was decided that the matter should be left to bedetermined by the (ury by applying their personal knowledge andexperience. "he issue was whether an anaesthetistBs negligence was sogross as to render him liable for gross negligence manslaughter when hispatient died. It seems an easy task for a layman to determine whether adoctor failed to show the standard of care and skill expected of himwhile performing the surgery. It is widely believed that where issuesdon+t raise any serious complications or !uestions of technicalknowledge the (urors by virtue of their collective experience arenormally able to discern what would have been a reasonable course ofaction for the defendant to have followed in the circumstances. 37#owever to uphold such (ury standards for the crime of corporatekilling sounds inappropriate. >ven though (ury is made up of a lot mindsand carry a lot of experience it is not thought wise to leave them withdetermining such complex matters. "he problem lies with thecomplications and technicalities involved in determining reasonablestandards given a particular industry. =arely will (urors be able todraw on their personal experiences to determine what a reasonablecompany would have done under the circumstances. 38 "hey can fall forboth sides and hence should not be invited to draw upon their personalexperiences and partial knowledge to try corporate killing.

:3 Gobert, J., Corporate Killing at Home and Abroad Reflections on the Government Proposals, .!.R.,"#$$#%, 11& Jan, at pg -.:: bid at pg &-.:9 "166:% A.C. 1>1.:> Gobert, J., Corporate Killing at Home and Abroad Reflections on the Government Proposals, .!.R.,"#$$#%, 11& Jan, at pg &3.:& Gobert, J., Corporate Killing at Home and Abroad Reflections on the Government Proposals, .!.R.,"#$$#%, 11& Jan, at pg &3.


10/14

It is apparent that the proposed Cill carries with it new problems andis not free from encumbrances. "he specific test of liability failsboth to provide fair notice to companies of what specifically isexpected of them or guidance to the (ury or fact finder as to when aconviction is warranted. Cesides these failings the governmentBsproposal is limited in its scope also. It applies only to homicides andnot to any work related in(uries. It is contemplated that seriousworkplace in(uries are far more common than workplace deaths andoffences involving loss of property may perhaps be more common still. 3:It is unclear whether the proposed Cill would be effective if it isenacted since many academics and scholars have already expressedtheir doubts in its entirety to hold corporations criminallyresponsible. Despite considerable lapse of time and numerous publicresponses the government has failed to enact the new legislation oncorporate killing. 6ince proposing the new offence there has been verylittle in the way of progress. It is painstaking to see the road toreform being sabotaged by the political clout of big business. 's aresult all we can do is speculate for now.

It is important to contrast the approach in $% with some other(urisdictions in order to highlight the limitations currently existingin the law of manslaughter. Ideas adopted in foreign (urisdictionscould help broaden and refine the approach of the courts in the $%and bestow them with powers that they ought to have. In Italian law anew statute 5; has broadened the approach relying either on anidentification doctrine but an identification doctrine which iswilling to look beyond the directors in order to ascribe fault. Inaddition to this the statute extends to corporate fault by examiningwhether the company had sufficient policies in place to prevent risks. 5)'nother potential method for inflicting punishment on firms whichtransgress the law is to render the directors liable for suchtransgressions. "his is of course a form of lifting the corporateveil which has very occasionally been used in the $% and other(urisdictions. 6ome $6 states favour the punishment of a particulardirector or group of directors as does the hinese legal system withits concept of the legal representative. It would be unusual in the$% for a director to be held responsible for the crimes andmisdemeanours of their company. In the $% the law has had considerableproblems with this concept preferring to maintain the corporate veiland punish the company through the means of a fine for anytransgression of the criminal law. In hine the law goes further moreand there is potential for the legal representative to be prosecutedfor the company+s crimes even though the legal representative tends tobe very senior member of the company+s management. 5,

:6 +*gnai, 7., @Coping /ith Corporate Criminalit(0 'ome lessons from tal(B "#$$#% Criminal a/ Revie/, pg 9#-9$ = G' " egislative =ecree% of J*ne &, #$$1 n.#-1 "=ecreto egislativo F=isciplina della responsbilitamministrativa delle persone gi*ridiche, delle societ e delle associa ioni anche prive di personalitgi*ridicaF%. P*blished in Ga etta ?fficiale n.13$ of J*ne 16, #$$1.91 Gobert, J., ) +*gnai, 7., @Coping /ith Corporate Criminalit(0 'ome lessons from tal(B "#$$#% Criminala/ Revie/, pg 9#:.

9# 'ee generall( a ter, C.R ) ;ng, K.4., @A Comparative st*d( of the


11/14

Proposals for reform:

It must be noted that reliance on the identification doctrine has causednumerous problems and an urgent reform of the law is needed if $% wantsto control the activities of the corporations. *"he (ustification forcorporate criminal liability rests primarily on pragmatic rather than onmoral foundations+. 50 It is proposed that courts should look atorganisational fault described above as *corporate fault+ inattributing liability rather than attempting to identify the mind andwill of the company or aggregating the cumulative fault of theemployees. "he approach is more flexible and is in line with the Italianapproach. $nder this approach a company would be guilty of grossnegligence if the company fails to prevent its employee from behaving ina negligent or illegal manner. 51 "his would encourage the companies toput in place ade!uate safety measures and formulate stricter companypolicies. &or the crime under this approach is committed when thecorporation fails to prevent a criminal offence. * rounding corporatecriminality in organisational fault will direct a company+s attention tohow its business is organised and will promote systems procedures andcultures whose aim is to achieve compliance and safety through the

practise of due diligence+.53

#owever organisational fault should not beconsidered as the absolute test of culpability because it is designed tosupplement the existing theories of corporate criminal liability namelythe identification vicarious and the aggregate approach. It is notdesigned to displace or preclude the other theories but to supplementit. It is contended that it will be another way albeit more useful ofattributing corporate liability. $nlike the other methods organisationalfault has displaced individual fault as the basis of liability.

#olding companies derivatively liable for the crimes of their employeesis unfair to those companies which have made a good faith andreasonable effort to prevent such criminality. 55 It is unnecessary tolift the corporate veil and punish the director of the company if acrime is committed unless the directors of the company were actuallyaware of and sanction the commission of the crime. Instead we shallthink of other reforms to make the directors of a company more fearfulof the company committing a criminal offence. &ines for the directorsdis!ualification or even (ail for directors if they countenancecriminal behaviour are all possible methods to deter directors fromengaging in criminal activities. 9astly the prevalent approaches shouldnot be scraped as they can still play a formidable part in developingthe law as and when need arises for they are better suited to certaintypes of offences.

9- Gobert, J., ) +*gnai, 7., @Coping /ith Corporate Criminalit(0 'ome lessons from tal(B "#$$#% Criminala/ Revie/, pg 9#1.

93 Gobert, J ) P*nch, +,. Rethin ing Corporate Crime, "#$$-%, *tter/orths0 e is 2e is, ondon, at pg&9.9: bid at pg 113.99 bid.


12/14


13/14

6imister '.-. < 6ullivan .=. riminal 9aw2 "heory < DoctrineG,;;0H , nd edition #art -ublishing2 /xford

4ells . orporations and riminal =esponsibility , nd editionG,;;)H /xford $niversity -ress

Art&*les:

.= < /ng %.". *' omparative study of the &undamental elementsof hinese and >nglish ompany 9aw+ G)::8H 18 International andomparative 9aw uarterly pg :3.

larkson .M.E * orporate ManslaughterJ Ket more overnment-roposals+ rim. 9.=. G,;;3H 6ep at pg 577.

obert @. orporate %illing at #ome and 'broad L =eflections onthe overnment -roposals 9. .=. G,;;,H ))8 @an

obert @ < Mugnai >. * oping with orporate riminality2 6omelessons from Italy+ G,;;,H riminal 9aw =eview pg 5)7

obert @. * orporate riminalityJ &our models of &ault+ G)::1H)1 9egal 6tudies pg 0:0

6lapper . * orporate ManslaughterJ 'n >xamination of thedeterminants of -rosecutorial -olicy+ G)::0H 6ocial and 9egal6tudies pg 1,0.

Cases:

' +s =eference GFo , of ):::H G,;;;H 0 'll >= )8, Director of -ublic -rosecution v %ent < 6ussex ontractors 9td

G):11H %C )15 9ennards arrying o 9td v 'siatic -etroleum o 9td. G):)3H '

7;3. Mousell Cros v 9ondon and Forthwestern =y G):)7H , %C 805. -earks unston and "ee 9td v 4ard G):;,H , %C )

-ioneer oncrete G$%H 9td G)::3H ) C 9 5)0 #9 = v - < / &erries GDoverH 9td. G)::)H :, r. 'pp. =. 7, = v %ite G)::5H , r. 'pp = ,:3 =e 6upply of =eady Mixed oncrete GFo ,H Director eneral of &air

"rading v "rotman v Forth Korkshire ounty ouncil G)::8H >4 ' iv ),;8 "esco 6upermarkets 9td v Fattrass G):7,H ' )30.

Statutes

D9 6 G9egislative DecreeH of @une 8 ,;;) n.,0) GDecreto9egislativo ?Disciplina della responsbilit amministrativa dellepersone giuridiche delle societ e delle associaAioni anche privedi personalit giuridica?H. -ublished in aAAetta $fficiale n.)1;of @une ): ,;;)

Other $o*uments:


14/14

#ealth and 6afety >xecutive 6tatistics. 'vailabe atwww.hse.gov.$kNstatistics .

$% 9aw ommission -aper ,07 G)::5H *9egislating the riminalodeJ Involuntary Manslaughter+

$% #ome /ffice G,;;;H *=eforming the 9aw of InvolutaryManslaughterJ "he overnment -roposals+
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statisticshttp://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics

essay- corporate liability.doc

Documents

Transcript of essay- corporate liability.doc