Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has very properly described the circumstances in which Amendment No. 14 would apply. That is where more than one organisation owes a duty of care to a particular site. Therefore, that would have relevance where, for example, a number of contractors were working on a building site. There is nothing in the Bill to preclude organisations being prosecuted for an offence under the Bill in respect of the same fatality, provided that each owed a duty of care to the victim and both satisfied the tests for liability. There is nothing in criminal law generally that precludes such a prosecution. Indeed, it is not uncommon, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, for more than one person to be prosecuted for an offence or offences in respect of the same crime. In the context of the new offence, a pertinent example is provided by the Hatfield crash, where employees of both Network Rail and Balfour Beatty, and indeed both organisations themselves, were prosecuted. Although manslaughter charges were not successfully prosecuted, there was no principle to preclude the conviction of both. Clearly, it will be important to establish for the new offence that each organisation owed a duty of care to the victim. It is likely that the nature of that duty will differ: for example, on a building site, the main contractor is likely to owe a duty as the occupier of the site and owe duties in that respect. He will also owe duties to his employees and potentially to sub-contractors and their employees if he has assumed responsibilities for the co-ordination of work. Sub-contractors will owe separate duties of care for the performance of their work and the systems of work used for their employees. For prosecutions of more than one organisation, it would need to be proved that gross negligence on the part of each organisation, related to its own duty of care, was responsible for the death, but subject to that, there is no obstacle to prosecute each. So what the noble Lord seeks is achievable already. I hope he finds that explanation satisfactory and will withdraw his amendment.