UK: “Anthropomorphism No More” A Brief Guide To The Corporate Manslaughter And Corporate Homicide Act 2007

Last Updated: 21 April 2008
Article by Markus Esly

Companies can, in principle, be held responsible in criminal law for causing the death of employees or of members of the public. Around 240 people are killed at work in the United Kingdom per year1. The risk of fatal injuries to employees is, of course, greater in some industries: for example, a construction worker faces a risk of death 4.6 times greater than the national average. Large-scale engineering projects can pose considerable risks, though accidents in them are not always widely publicised. More than 15 construction workers died during the construction of the Channel Tunnel. Both fatal accidents of employees and disasters causing the death of members of the public can lead to the imposition of criminal liability on a company. After particularly serious accidents (most recently, a series of rail crashes), there tend to be strong calls for criminal prosecutions due to alleged corporate mismanagement. As we will see, these prosecutions have rarely led to convictions but the law has now changed.

The common law has long since recognised the offence of manslaughter where there is no intention to kill, and companies are not exempt from the criminal law. On 6 April 2008, the provisions of the new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (the "Act") will come into force. The Act will operate in addition to existing health and safety at work legislation (which is not the focus of this article). It reforms the basis on which a company can be found criminally liable for the death of a person to whom it owed a duty of care. The Act applies where the harm resulting in death occurred in the United Kingdom – it does it apply extraterritorially, nor does not apply retrospectively. Any company (whether English or foreign registered) can be made a defendant in a prosecution, provided that the company operates in the United Kingdom.

What does the Act mean for companies and their legal responsibility if fatal accidents occur? This article highlights the key features of the new legislation.

Corporate criminal liability for manslaughter – was it ever a real risk?

The reform of the criminal law leading to the Act originated with a Law Commission report published in 19961. Under the old law, the offence required a corporate defendant to have committed a gross breach of a duty of care owed to the victim.

At common law, criminal offences traditionally require both a "guilty act" (actus reus) and a "guilty state of mind" (mens rea) from the defendant. A company could therefore only be convicted if it could be shown that its "directing mind" was guilty of the offence. A sufficiently senior representative of the company, who by his actions (and thoughts) represented it, was needed. While this "identification" principle has been criticised, it has been consistently upheld by the courts2. Until the recent reform of the law, it remained a constituent of the common law offence, in addition to a duty of care to the victim, a breach of which caused the death.

But past unsuccessful prosecutions for "old" corporate manslaughter have shown the real difficulties in proceeding on such an anthropomorphic basis against large corporations. The more complex the corporate entity and its management structure, the more difficult "identification" is. Lines of responsibility may be blurred, especially where health and safety is not centrally managed. Successful prosecutions for the "old" offence of corporate manslaughter have tended to involve small companies with simple management structures.

In none of the following cases where significant lives were lost, and where accusations of management failures or negligence were made, did prosecutions for corporate manslaughter succeed:

  • "Herald of Free Enterprise" of March 1987 (187 dead)
  • King's Cross fire of November 1987 (31 dead)
  • Piper Alpha oil platform disaster of July 1988 (167 dead)
  • Clapham rail crash of December 1988 (35 dead)
  • "Marchioness" accident of August 1989 (51 dead)
  • Southall rail crash of September 1997 (7 dead)
  • Paddington rail crash of October 1999 (31 dead)
  • Hatfield rail crash of October 2000 (4 dead)
  • Potters Bar rail crash of May 2000 (7 dead)

Instead, fines were imposed on the responsible companies3. Pecuniary penalties alone were, however, strongly condemned by the public. Calls were made for criminal liability to be imposed in the case of these (and other) serious disasters, where the old criminal law appeared to many (including the Crown Prosecution Service) to be powerless4.

The new offence – what has changed and who is caught?

What is the offence?

In summary, under the Act a company will be guilty of an offence if it causes a fatal accident through the way in which it manages its business or activities5. The company's failure in this regard must, however, amount to a grossly negligent breach of a duty of care to the victim. The focus is now no longer on the conduct and knowledge of a particular individual, and instead on processes or systems employed by the company as a whole – and in particular, how health and safety were managed or organised.

It is important to note that the Act itself does not impose new standards or introduce more stringent guidelines. Neither does it create a duty of care on the part of company where there was none prior to the Act. However, any breaches of existing health and safety requirements by the company, and the seriousness or extent of those breaches, will be an important factor6.

Who can be a victim?

The Act does not apply extra-territorially, but only to the United Kingdom. The victim must die as a result of harm that occurred within the United Kingdom7. So a foreign tourist injured in the United Kingdom who dies at home outside the United Kingdom is a victim within the meaning of the Act. However, an English tourist who is injured abroad but dies at home within the United Kingdom is not, however (assuming it is clear-cut when the harm occurred and what the operative cause of death is!).

Which companies are caught?

The Act applies to all companies incorporated in the United Kingdom, and also all foreign corporations that operate in the United Kingdom (whether or not they are registered here – if you commit a criminal offence within the jurisdiction, you are subject to its criminal law). Limited liability partnerships are caught, as are public bodies incorporated by statute (such as local authorities, NHS bodies etc). Companies have distinct legal personalities, so a parent company will not be liable for the failings of a subsidiary if it is the latter who actually managed the relevant activities. Similarly, foreign companies operating through a distinct local subsidiary should not be prosecuted. The Act is not intended to allow the corporate veil to be pierced. Instead, the local operating vehicle would be the defendant. The Act also does not apply to individuals (who cannot be accessories to an offence committed by a company)8.

Senior management at fault

Before a company can be convicted, it must be shown that a substantial part of the failure occurred at a senior level – and senior management means officers of the company who make significant decisions about it as a whole, or about substantial parts of the business, or who actually manage the company (or a substantial part of it). The guide to the Act published by the Ministry of Justice confirms that senior management will include "both centralised, headquarters functions as well as those in operational management roles."9

Membership of the senior management of a particular company will depend on the facts of the case. Directors and those holding positions similar to a directorship will be senior management unless something unusual excludes them. Regional managers, or heads of different operational divisions, are also likely to be caught.

It is important to recall that under the Act, senior management will not be able to plead delegation in its defence. Inappropriate delegation, a "hands-off" attitude or (worst of all) turning a blind eye by senior management can easily constitute a management failure for the purpose of the Act.

A relevant duty of care must be owed

As noted above, the company must owe a duty of care to the victim, and the Act defines10 which duties of care are "relevant". These duties are already owed under the existing law of negligence, so the Act itself does not widen the scope of a company's legal responsibilities. The duty must be an existing one, and must (in addition) relate to the following:

  • the company's own employees or persons working for it or performing services for it;
  • the company occupying premises;
  • the company's business in connection with the supply of goods or services (irrespective of whether this is for consideration or not);
  • the company carrying out any construction or maintenance operations;
  • the company keeping any plant, vehicle or other thing (the first "catch-all");
  • carrying on any other activity on a commercial basis (the second "catch-all").

The Act does not do much to explain the circumstances in which a duty is owed to a particular victim – so the question might be, was the victim a reasonably foreseeable plaintiff? In practice, it would be safest to assume that all of a company's employees, customers, visitors or members of the public who might come into contact with its activities would be owed a duty of care.

Relevant factors for establishing gross negligence

The new offence is based on gross negligence. This means that the company's conduct (always at a sufficiently senior level) must have seriously fallen short of what the law expects. The Ministry of Justice has emphasised this point, stating that:

"Corporate manslaughter/homicide will continue to be an extremely serious offence, reserved for the very worst cases of corporate mismanagement leading to death."

A prosecution under the new legislation will therefore not only look at a particular level of management within the organisation, but would review health and safety across the board. Factors likely to be relevant include:

  • As mentioned, any breaches of existing health and safety requirements, generally accepted codes of conduct or practice, but also guidance11.
  • The "corporate culture" – or general attitudes towards health and safety. For instance, were obvious breaches regularly overlooked, was there a lax attitude?
  • What is the company's approach to auditing and monitoring health and safety? Are risk assessments prepared, and if so, how are they reviewed and implemented?
  • How health and safety systems or processes were actually operated "on the ground" – this may show whether "senior operational management roles" were effectively carried out.
  • What training was made available to employees? Do they understand the equipment or processes they use? Is the equipment itself safe, and regularly maintained?
  • Is there immediate and effective supervision where risks are such that this should be the case?


An organisation convicted of the new offence can receive:

  • A fine. There is no upper limit to this.
  • A publicity order. This requires an organisation to publicise the fact of its conviction and certain details of the offence, in a way specified by the court. Publicity orders are not being brought into force on 6 April 2008, but will be commenced when supporting guidelines are available.

In addition, the court can set a remedial order, requiring the organisation to address the cause of the fatal injury. These are not currently available for organisations convicted of manslaughter/culpable homicide, although they can be imposed under health and safety legislation.


Corporate manslaughter has received a statutory overhaul, and compared to its weak, anthropomorphic predecessor now seems to have teeth. However, it is important to note that while there has been a shift away from individuals being responsible within a company to the adequacy of management across the board (but at a senior level), the Act does not introduce an expectation of higher standards of conduct from companies, and does not impose any wider duty of care than the law of negligence. The offence is still based on gross negligence, and will only be relevant where there has been a serious failing. The most severe penalty that can be imposed is an unlimited fine, but in addition the stigma of criminal responsibility will attach to the organisation (but not individuals, which are specifically excluded from the Act).


1 See the Health and Safety Commission's statistics for fatal injuries for 2006/2007 (from July to July).

1 "Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter" (Law Com 237).

2 See for instance the Court of Appeal in the Southall rail disaster case (upholding the acquittal of the rail company at first instance), Rose LJ stated that: "... in any event, the identification principle is in our judgment just as relevant to the actus reus as to mens rea. In Tesco v Nattrass at 173D Lord Reid said "The judge must direct the jury that if they find certain facts proved then, as a matter of law, they must find that the criminal act of the officer, servant or agent, including his state of mind, intention, knowledge or belief is the act of the Company." .... In our judgment, unless an identified individual's conduct, characterisable as gross criminal negligence, can be attributed to the company the company is not, in the present state of the common law, liable for manslaughter." Attorney-General's Reference (No 2 of 1999) [2000] 3 All ER 182.

3 For example, for the Hatfield (Balfour Beatty £7.5m, Railtrack £3.5m), Paddington (Thames Trains £2m) and the Southall train crashes (Great Western Trains £1.5m).

4 See for example "Director of Public Prosecutions calls for change in law after Euromin manager acquitted of manslaughter" - CPS press notice 137/01, 29 November 2001.

5 It is suggested that the general test of causation in criminal law would apply. Was the company's act or failure to act an operative cause of the death? Or, alternatively, would the death have occurred "but for" the management failure? It may be that in some circumstances an intervening act breaks the chain linking the management failure to the death in question, making the latter too remote a consideration.

6 Section 8 of the Act requires juries to consider the extent and seriousness of failures to comply with health and safety obligations, and the degree of danger resulting from this. This relates to existing obligations only.

7 The harm resulting in the death must be sustained in the United Kingdom – Section 28(3) of the Act.

8 See Section 18 of the Act. Of course, individuals can already be prosecuted at common law for manslaughter.

9 A Guide to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, Ministry of Justice, October 2007.

10 Section 2

11 A jury may reasonably consider relevant health and safety guidance. This would capture statutory Approved Codes of Practice and other guidance published by the regulatory authorities tasked with enforcing health and safety laws. While guidance is of course not mandatory, it may very well be helpful to a jury when considering the question of gross negligence

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.