Rate this!
patrick mcginley
Member - 3 posts
This is despicable. If the Corporate Manslaughter Act had been passed earlier, and had teeth, these peole should be in gaol.
Rate this!
Mark Spencer
Member - 2 posts
Well I hope the Directors sleep well in there beds!!!
Rate this!
Julian Davis
Member - 27 posts
That is a dangerous precedent to have been set so early in the life of the Corporate Manslughter legislation and fully justifies why H&S professionals and Trade Unions want more individual accountability at the tops of companies. Some of these directors will now go off and build another business - we can only hope they have learnt their lesson and don't kill anyone else!
Rate this!
. .
Member - 3 posts
At this point should there not be steps taken to examine ways of allowing for the seizure of company assets by the Courts, pending the outcome of investigations into future instances like this? Or will we have cries of "Draconian Draconian, we will forever live under the shadow of having all our profits taken each time there's an accident"?
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero CFIOSH, FIIRSM
Member - 45 posts
If North West Aerosols is a small firm, the question arises – why haven’t the HSE taken a prosecution against the directors under s37 HSWA74?? This would also apply in any organisation where 'the controling mind' can be established.
Rate this!
Martin CMIOSH
Member - 7 posts
A few points to make to the people that have commented on this story.
1/ Corporate Manslaughter Act is irrelevant to this case as it is not retrospective. Even if the fatality had occurred after April 2008, the CPS would need to establish that the gross negligence had also occurred after the Act became law.
2/ Corporate Manslaughter Act would not result in directors going to prison. Pre existing legislation could be brought against Directors e.g. Individual Manslaughter and/or HASAW Act.
3/ For whatever reason the HSE/Police/CPS decided that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against individuals. If there was evidence they would have been charged. It is potentially libellous to suggest that the Directors were at fault.
4/ The reason for the £2 fine is important and should be explained. The liquidators would be duty bound to pay the crown fine before paying other creditors. This might well include suppliers, employee salaries, pension fund shortfalls. The judge made the correct decision in my opinion to charge the token fine.
0 (0)
