Protests Erupt In Syria Over Christmas...
News1 min ago
Grenfell Tower: Corporate Manslaughter Considered By Police
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Do not count your chickens.
Since the Corporate Homicide Act was introduced in 2007 there have been just 23 prosecutions with 20 successes and three of those came in May of this year. The offence is notoriously difficult to prosecute despite the 2007 Act making it far easier to prove than simple manslaughter. It enabled the “controlling mind” aspect of the offence to be tested. This concentrated on the way a company’s activities are organised from a senior level and how effective and adequate those activities were. All of the successful cases have been against small concerns where the senior managers and directors have been close to the “coal face”, often engaging in a “hands-on” approach to the company’s affairs. As far as I know there is yet to be a successful prosecution against a large organisation where the Senior Managers could be said to be at arms’ length. The only prosecution of such a concern was against the Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in 2016 and that ended in an acquittal on the direction of the judge. These prosecutions represent a small percentage of the number of investigations carried out.
I would imagine that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Kensington and Chelsea Tenancy Management Organisation (the two organisations said to be under consideration for investigation) manifestly fall into the “large” category. Based on the history of Corporate Manslaughter prosecutions since 2007 it is by no means a slam-dunk that these organisations will face prosecution and a little less certain that convictions will follow.
Further than that it should be noted that individuals cannot be prosecuted under the Act. Since the maximum penalty against a convicted organisation is an unlimited fine the payment of that fine will be fall on taxpayer-funded concerns. The taxpayer has probably already had a large enough bill to meet from this fiasco as it is.
Since the Corporate Homicide Act was introduced in 2007 there have been just 23 prosecutions with 20 successes and three of those came in May of this year. The offence is notoriously difficult to prosecute despite the 2007 Act making it far easier to prove than simple manslaughter. It enabled the “controlling mind” aspect of the offence to be tested. This concentrated on the way a company’s activities are organised from a senior level and how effective and adequate those activities were. All of the successful cases have been against small concerns where the senior managers and directors have been close to the “coal face”, often engaging in a “hands-on” approach to the company’s affairs. As far as I know there is yet to be a successful prosecution against a large organisation where the Senior Managers could be said to be at arms’ length. The only prosecution of such a concern was against the Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in 2016 and that ended in an acquittal on the direction of the judge. These prosecutions represent a small percentage of the number of investigations carried out.
I would imagine that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Kensington and Chelsea Tenancy Management Organisation (the two organisations said to be under consideration for investigation) manifestly fall into the “large” category. Based on the history of Corporate Manslaughter prosecutions since 2007 it is by no means a slam-dunk that these organisations will face prosecution and a little less certain that convictions will follow.
Further than that it should be noted that individuals cannot be prosecuted under the Act. Since the maximum penalty against a convicted organisation is an unlimited fine the payment of that fine will be fall on taxpayer-funded concerns. The taxpayer has probably already had a large enough bill to meet from this fiasco as it is.
I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for a conviction on this.
Those currently with their names in the frame (for conviction) will be able to cite that they followed central government diktats re building regulations. If you think that any government minister who allowed the situation, will be called to account – you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
I predict that very few will come up smelling of roses once the final report in to this tragedy is published.
Those currently with their names in the frame (for conviction) will be able to cite that they followed central government diktats re building regulations. If you think that any government minister who allowed the situation, will be called to account – you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
I predict that very few will come up smelling of roses once the final report in to this tragedy is published.
http://
".....But residents warned the tower block remained a fire risk. In a further blog posting in November 2016, the action group stated it believed "only a catastrophic event" would bring an end to the dangerous living conditions at the tower block...."
Seems residents were threatening or promising a disaster in Nov 16, after Grenfell's 2015-16 refurb @ £10mln. They are suss imo!
".....But residents warned the tower block remained a fire risk. In a further blog posting in November 2016, the action group stated it believed "only a catastrophic event" would bring an end to the dangerous living conditions at the tower block...."
Seems residents were threatening or promising a disaster in Nov 16, after Grenfell's 2015-16 refurb @ £10mln. They are suss imo!
I'm not quite sure where Mikey and Eddie have been living their lives but it must have been very remote if they imagine that British justice is about to swing into action and deliver a swift end to this sorry affair.
The first priority is to make sure our masters are at a safe distance from any hint of trouble, then we have to wait for most of the survivors to die of natural causes. Only then will things even begin to move in any meaningful way.
It's the British way.
The first priority is to make sure our masters are at a safe distance from any hint of trouble, then we have to wait for most of the survivors to die of natural causes. Only then will things even begin to move in any meaningful way.
It's the British way.
Douglas I expect the manslaughter charge to drag on for months or even years. Corporate manslaughter as NJ says, is a very difficult charge to prove,it can only be applied to an organisation or group not to an individual. There can be no arrests for it as no one person is deemed responsible.
I expect that once the coroner's jury starts hearing the inquests, which is at least many months away yet, there will be a verdict of 'unlawful killing' as there was in the Hillsborough inquests.
I expect that once the coroner's jury starts hearing the inquests, which is at least many months away yet, there will be a verdict of 'unlawful killing' as there was in the Hillsborough inquests.
// I predicted this would be an outcome.//
it is not an outcome - it is a consideration ( sorry I sound a bit like Spicey - the president's old press secretary - - ["that is nart a warl - you said warl I did nart. "])
suspicion - which is all it is at present is
'anything which is not fanciful' ( R v Shah I think)
we are a long way from it
altho west ken council's behaviour ( closed meetings etc) clearly shows they thought it was on the agenda
( being adverted to a risk and deciding to run it - clealry grounds for suspicion)
it is not an outcome - it is a consideration ( sorry I sound a bit like Spicey - the president's old press secretary - - ["that is nart a warl - you said warl I did nart. "])
suspicion - which is all it is at present is
'anything which is not fanciful' ( R v Shah I think)
we are a long way from it
altho west ken council's behaviour ( closed meetings etc) clearly shows they thought it was on the agenda
( being adverted to a risk and deciding to run it - clealry grounds for suspicion)
// As far as I there is yet to be a successful prosecution against a large organisation where the Senior Managers could be said to be at arms’ length. //
by definition ( in law ) you wont get a conviction as the offence involves the board being given notice. - which is not compatible with being arms length
and isnt a standard response - "oh no no - nothing to do with us - it is mrs mopp down the corridor somewhere you should be speaking to. goodbye. have a nice day" - which would work so long as it isnt a board member saying that ....
by definition ( in law ) you wont get a conviction as the offence involves the board being given notice. - which is not compatible with being arms length
and isnt a standard response - "oh no no - nothing to do with us - it is mrs mopp down the corridor somewhere you should be speaking to. goodbye. have a nice day" - which would work so long as it isnt a board member saying that ....
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.