ARTICLE
25 July 2012

Third Company Convicted Of Corporate Manslaughter Is Sentenced

CC
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang

Contributor

CMS is a Future Facing firm with 79 offices in over 40 countries and more than 5,000 lawyers globally. Combining local market insight with a global perspective, CMS provides business-focused advice to help clients navigate change confidently. The firm's expertise and innovative approach anticipate challenges and develop solutions. CMS is committed to diversity, inclusivity, and corporate social responsibility, fostering a supportive culture. The firm addresses key client concerns like efficiency and regulatory challenges through services like Law-Now, offering real-time eAlerts, mobile access, an extensive legal archive, specialist zones, and global events.

Last week we reported that a third company, Lion Steel Limited, had been convicted of corporate manslaughter under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
United Kingdom Criminal Law

Last week we reported that a third company, Lion Steel Limited, had been convicted of corporate manslaughter under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. Sentencing was passed on 20 July 2012 with a fine of £480,000 making it the largest fine to date, albeit still below the £500,000 starting point stipulated in guidance.

This case was of particular interest as it is generally felt that the legislation and relative guidance has not yet been fully tested on a larger scale company such as Lion Steel. By way of analysis Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings were the first company to be convicted under the legislation. Due to the financial difficulties Cotswold were facing, and with an annual turnover of only £300,000, they were fined £385,000 payable over ten years. They went into liquidation shortly after. The conviction of JMW Farms Limited (Co. Armagh) did not provide any clarity on the stance the courts will adopt as they had a significantly higher annual turnover of over £1million, were in good health but yet only attracted a fine of £187,500 plus £13,000 in costs. There was a reduction of 25% to reflect the fact that they pled guilty but it is not entirely clear why the starting point was so far below the guidance in the first place.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 20/07/2012.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More