Kicking and damning corporate souls

1 September 2011 by

As of today, government or private institutions tasked with keeping people in custody will be accountable in criminal law if it can be shown that a “gross duty of care” has led to the death of a detainee.

In 2008 the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 came into force, creating  a new offence of corporate manslaughter. An offence is made out under this Act where a corporation’s activities cause a person’s death and the failure was because of a breach that falls far below what can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances.

The so-called “custody provisions” (ss 2(1)(d) and 2(2)) were only brought into force on the 1st of September 2011. This means that it will in theory be possible to prosecute any organisation, government or private, from prisons and secure hospitals to juvenile detention facilities, for breach of the duty they owed to the deceased in custody.

It is questionable however whether this additional layer of accountability will add anything to the scrutiny imposed by the enhanced system of inquiry into suspicious deaths in so-called “Middleton” inquests (such an inquest is required when the state is obliged under Article 2 to investigate a potential breach of its positive Convention duty to protect life). A corporation, however iniquitous, has no individual sense of shame or limited lifespan of liberty to lose by virtue of a criminal conviction.

The arguments against the concept of corporate responsibility in this area hold true despite the fact that the Act has been in force for a number of years, and this may be a moment for reminding ourselves what they are:

  • imposing criminal liability on corporations imposes stigma penalties on bodies insensitive to stigma but imposes on society the high costs of pursuing such punishment
  • corporations are not affected by deterrence, only individuals are, so the public bears the cost of this futile enforcement mechanism
  • corporate entities work as an effective veil for any individual responsibility and they can easily melt away under liquidation proceedings and reappear without any damage to reputation

These arguments add up in essence to what has been called the “anthropomorphic fallacy” and they were eloquently addressed by C.M. Clarkson’s 1996 paper “Kicking corporate bodies and damning their souls” (MLR 59(4): 557), now a classic review of the continuing controversy about corporate responsibility. The reference was to the 18th century Lord Chancellor’s rhetorical question – “Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?” (Edward, First Baron Thurlow 1731 – 1806)

The fact that this debate is as old as the hills is no reason not to revisit it, and now that a few years have elapsed since this much contested corporate liability has been in place it may well be worth applying some wisdom of hindsight to the contentions at its core. More specifically, some clarification should be sought on the relationship between criminal responsibility for custodial deaths and the “pull out all the stops”  inquest scrutiny imposed where the deceased has met his end in custody.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;


  1. Gary says:

    In 1991 I was detained at Welford Road Prison in Leicester where I suffered physical abuse so severe that I realised they could kill people and get away with it. It was at this time that my spirit was completely broken.
    I do see that they will all still have the ability to avoid being punished and the buck shall always get passed- I’ve suffered what I regard as Government corruption in the last 2.5yrs and continue to do so- having laws made or changed isn’t going to make one iota of difference whilst we have the present regime.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: