“Mind the gap”, goes the familiar safety warning over London Underground’s loudspeakers as passengers step down off the trains. Scottish justice minister Cathy Jamieson should bear that in mind as she studies in detail her expert group’s recently published proposals for new offences of corporate killing.
In fact, there is a whole series of gaps and inconsistencies in the proposals that could make them a disastrous burden on business, unworkable, or both.
The one already much commented on is the gulf that would be created between English and Scottish law if, as the group proposes, Scotland goes its own way in targeting not just organisations but also individuals.
Admittedly, it is hard to contradict the group’s argument that it would be problematic to import into Scots criminal law the English civil law concept of gross breach of a duty of care, on which the Home Office has based its own proposed new corporate manslaughter offence for England and Wales. Making an organisation liable instead for death through recklessness, and where it failed to put in appropriate health and safety policies and systems, is sensible and covers both those who were aware of the risks of their actions or lack of them, and those who ought to have been.
The majority in the group who backed creating offences varying substantially from that in the rest of the UK might well also argue that Scotland has the right to impose its own rules of behaviour on organisations residing in it. However, in so doing they overrode not only the concerns of the representatives from business – just two out of the 11 – over the impact of investment in Scotland, compounded by the proposal to make Scottish-based organisations liable for deaths resulting from their activities anywhere else in the world. They also disregarded the Health and Safety Executive’s own representative who raised the operational need for a consistent approach.
Indeed, the group left unaddressed the potential gap between whatever law is brought in and existing health and safety legislation, which is an area reserved to Westminster. This creates the real possibility that a company that through its recklessness kills one person would be prosecuted under the former, but if its recklessness “only” maimed hundreds it could only be prosecuted under legislation which the Scottish Parliament has no authority to amend.
Meanwhile, there would be no point in creating a new offence if it did not result in penalties different from those available under the Heath and Safety At Work Act which already include up to six months’ imprisonment for individuals as well as unlimited fines.
Corporate probation and the appointment of health and safety administrators, while the guilty organisation implements changes to prevent reoffending, are two of the few, truly new sanctions proposed by the group. Yet who is to oversee these links into the broader question raised by the group’s call for additional resources for the HSE to investigate the new offences, when this is outside the Scottish Executive’s remit? Another proposal, disqualifying an organisation from activities associated with the offending, could have an unfair impact on employees, shareholders and customers, a significant issue judges already have to bear in mind when imposing penalties. Yet this “spillover” effect did not stop the group proposing “equity fines” – requiring a guilty company to issue additional shares, diluting its value – even though that caused the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, when it recently considered a corporate manslaughter law, to reject them as an option
Of course, the proposed new offences for individual directors and senior managers might be considered the biggest deterrent against corporate killing. Causing death by recklessness was seen by the majority of the group as appropriate for cases falling short of culpable homicide and easier to prove. However, the question must be asked – as it was by a minority in the group – whether there should be a lower legal threshold against a person just because the death occurred in the workplace.
Admittedly, the group would limit the secondary offence when the organisation is already being prosecuted to directors and senior managers responsible for ensuring systems are in place and functioning properly. This, however, would take us no further forward than previous debates. In larger organisations all on the board could say they had no such direct responsibility, except the person to whom health and safety has been delegated – and who, as a result, would want to take on that role?
Meanwhile, as now, in small companies where division of responsibilities of this sort rarely exists, all directors could be liable and face imprisonment.
The report’s rationale seems to be principally driven by a political need to respond to anecdotal indications of “significant public dissatisfaction” with the number of prosecutions to date in Scotland. However, if evidence had been obtained from more than the unions, academics and others with their own public agendas who very much mirror the bulk of the group’s own membership - or at least more weight given to the warnings of the minority representation of business and the Health and Safety Executive itself - its gaps and inconsistencies might perhaps have been better addressed. We must wait for draft legislation to see if Ms Jamieson was in the end minded to mind them.
Craig Turnbull is a partner with MacRoberts, Solicitors, specialising in construction law.
Current Submissions04.07.08 Getting a Get in Scotland - 2This follow-up to the article published in March 2006 explains how current Scots divorce law affects Jewish clients and how solicitors can give appropriate advice 12.06.08 No place for secrecyFuller version of the Opinion article, Journal, June 2008: critique of the system for appointment as Queen’s Counsel in Scotland 11.03.08 One Scotland, many cultures?Despite the protections of the Human Rights Act, the position of travelling people in Scotland appears to have worsened in recent years - why? 26.02.08 Bank charges and the Unfair Terms RegulationsThe significance of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations in the context of the current litigation over bank charges 21.02.08 CGT: Don't lose out on 6 April 2008Couples should consider asset transfers before then to preserve indexation relief 14.12.07 Common sense prevailsThe options open, and the issues that arise, now that the proposed planning gain supplement is not to be introduced 07.12.07 Discounting justiceAuthor contends that sentencing discounts and other developments have created an imbalance in the justice system 10.10.07 Advocacy in mediationAn overview of the mediation process and the opportunities for solicitors and clients 06.09.07 TUPE: stay your handA Court of Session ruling on a law firm redundancy marks a fundamental change in TUPE 24.07.07 EAT breaks ground with TUPE insolvency rulingRuling on when insolvency proceedings begin leaves successor employer liable 06.07.07 Confidentiality clauses - beware!The Information Commissioner's decision in the VisitScotland case requires very careful drafting of confidentiality provisions in public sector contracts if they are to work 06.07.07 The power of marks: Frankie goes after Hollys nameHow failure to address issues of ownership of the band's name stored up trouble for Frankie Goes to Hollywood 14.05.07 Court plans with little appealThe fuller version of the Opinion article in the Journal for May 2007 14.05.07 Winning waysThe fuller version of the article in the Journal for May 2007 08.02.07 Routes to qualification: the Italian pictureAn Italian lawyer with an interest in training in different jurisdictions reports on current developments in the Italian legal system 09.01.07 Contractual handcuffs: enhanced redundancy rightsThe Court of Appeal decision in Keeley v FOSROC International Ltd requires employers to exercise caution when referring to redundancy rights in staff handbooks 27.12.06 The Isle of ManAn summary of the current legal and tax regime for individuals and companies based on the island (a longer version of the briefing in the November 2006 issue) 15.11.06 Costume Wars: copyright storm over the troopersA row over "Star Wars" costumes illustrates the need to protect all intellectual property rights in written agreements 13.10.06 Survival of the fittest? A replyReply to article on selection for Diploma and traineeship places by Michael Torrance in the September 2006 Journal 13.10.06 TUPE passes the buckFar from providing clarity, the new regulations will need litigation to decide the effect of the insolvency provisions (longer version of October 2006 briefing article) 17.08.06 For supplement read tax - an updateAuthors update their previous Journal article on the proposed planning gain supplement 17.08.06 Technology and the Scottish courtsAn update on the use of technology in the Scottish courts, based on the author's experience of a recent patent case 26.07.06 A lack of trustForthcoming in August issue, put online because of its urgency, the article outlines the final form of the trust tax changes in this year's Finance Act 17.07.06 Ireland 4, Italy 0The ECJ decision in the Irish-Italian dispute in the Parmalat companies liquidation proceedings provides important guidance on jurisdiction 05.04.06 Legal science or law-lite? A responseThis reply to Professor Gretton argues that changes in Scots law teaching are a necessary response to changes in universities, the wider community and the law itself 03.04.06 Opening a binding global route for personal dataIn a significant move the Information Commissioner has allowed a company to transfer employees' personal data outwith the EU under binding internal rules 02.04.06 Mentally disordered offendersOverview of the options available to the courts when dealing with offenders who have or may have a mental disorder, following recent legislative reforms 30.03.06 Bias and mental health tribunals: a replyReply to criticisms of the new tribunals, arguing that the composition of the tribunals is not inherently unfair and only research can assess their performance 17.01.06 Legal aid in children's hearing referralsThis paper delivered at the legal aid conference, argues that the interests of justice require better remuneration for solicitors appearing in children's hearing cases 09.12.05 Holes in Scotland's corporate killing proposalsGaps in the expert working group's proposals could make them unworkable and bad for business 10.08.05 Prosecuting bigotry offencesTwo appeal decisions have exposed limitations in the statutory offences directed at racial abuse 08.07.05 Commissioner: Public Authorities must do moreInformation Commissioner's first appeal decision highlights areas for improvement 14.04.05 New identity for criminal justice bodyScottish Association for the Study of Offending launches by removing "Delinquency" from title 14.04.05 Information and Consultation RegulationsBriefing on the regulations in force from 6 April 2005, covering businesses with more than the prescribed number of employees 13.04.05 Retailers seek effective court action on crimeScottish Retail Consortium proposes more effective intervention following 3rd Retail Crime Survey 11.04.05 Appropriate dispute resolutionThis paper, given to the Four Jurisdictions Conference in Nice this year, discusses how family law can make a difference for the better by careful choice of the most suitable method of resolution 09.03.05 ASBOs and young peopleWhat to look for when acting for a young person facing an antisocial behaviour order application 21.02.05 Sell or transfer?Longer version of briefing published in February 2005 issue, page 44 08.02.05 Promoting competitiveness or competition?Discussion of EU rules on state aids with particular reference to Highlands and Islands ferries 10.11.04 Guarding the inner sanctumHow to minimise the risk of breaches of internet security 10.11.04 The Clinical Trials Directive - a summaryWhat the EU Clinical Trials Directive means for trials of medicinal products 13.10.04 Sheriff Court Rules Council consultation paperConsultation on proposals for further extension of the use of information technology in civil cases in the sheriff court (response date: 15 November 2004) 13.10.04 Ignorantia juris: it's all Greek to meSecond annual APEX lecture given by the President of the Law Society of Scotland, on the rule of law and its essential components 13.10.04 Virtual firms: transactional learning on the webHow today's Diploma students are introduced to legal transactions in a virtual environment 13.10.04 Drafting consumer contractsGuidance on drafting consumer contracts and ensuring compliance with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 |