Does the noble Lord agree—and this is relevant to what other noble Lords have said—that the standard of care is set by Clause 1(4)(b)? It gives us an explanation of what is meant by gross negligence and tells us that the breach has fallen ““far below””—I would say below, "““what can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances””."
What can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances is the duty set by Clause 1(1)(b). It is no good for noble Lords to say, ““Oh, this is a question for lawyers”” or ““It is not a question for lawyers””. It is a matter of common sense. The word ““far”” limits the liability further.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 11 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c143-4GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:44:58 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368135
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368135
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_368135