Foundations of Law

Table of Contents
Elements of Gross Negligence Manslaughter..................................................................................3
Identification and discussion of the difficulties of imposing liability for gross negligence
manslaughter on corporation...........................................................................................................5
Key provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (CMCHA) 2007....7
References......................................................................................................................................10

Elements of Gross Negligence Manslaughter

In the books of law, (you dont really need it unless you need extra words gross
negligence manslaughter has been referred as an involuntary manslaughter, in which the
defendant possesses no intentions to indulge in a crime (you need to reference these books and a
court case (if possible). The defendant or the related activities is beyond all reasonable doubt the
cause of the death; however, he neither intends to cause physical harm or death to the person(you
need to reference these books and a court case (if possible). cause physical harm to anyone nor
any gruesome intentions to kill a person. This reflects thatthat the defendant is said to not possess
the mens rea (intention) for murder (reference). theIn legal terms, defendant has no mens rea of
murder.1 Gross negligence manslaughter has four essential elements, which are listed as below
(reference:
(if this is not a report and its an essay I wouldnt list it like this)
1. The existence of a duty of care (duty of care is the legal term and you need to use those three
words specificaly) particular duty,
2. Death caused by the breach of the duty,
3. The gross negligence must be considered by the Jury to be criminal. that are considered as
criminal conviction as per the Jury considerations
4. Gross negligence and it is evident that gross negligence is the sole cause of death. 2 In certain
circumstances, it is also regarded as a classic approach to manslaughter or a legitimate form,
1

Lanham, D., Wood, D., Bartal, B. and Evans, R. 2006. Criminal laws in Australia. NSW:
Federation Press. Pp: 208-209. (I PROBABLY WOULDNT USE THIS SOURCE UNLESS IT
SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS UK LAW AS OUR LEGAL SYSTEM IS DIFFERENT FROM
AUSTRALIA)

Sixth form law. 2008. [Online]. Available at:

http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod3a/3_32_involuntary/02_mans_gross_neg_actus.htm
[Accessed on: 25 November 2014]. (DONT CITE THIS WEBSITE IT DOES NOT COUNT AS
A SOURCE, CITE CASES FOR E.G. R v Adamako (sixthform law is not an academic cite)

which is nowhere similar to the constructive manslaughter (I am not sure what you are trying to
say). In cases related to gross negligence manslaughter, the defendantappellant has acted
lawfully; however, certain circumstances of the defendant's doing have lead to the death of the
victim(I would probably get rid of this sentence altogether unless you really like it. But if you are
keeping it you need to reference. As the name suggests, manslaughter happens due to sheer
negligence by the defendant, which cannot be presented as a murder, as it lacks certain intentions
(Repetition).3
In case the negligence or conduct of the defendant falls under an expected level (What do
you mean by expected level?), the case is not considered under the legislation related to gross
negligence manslaughter (Reference these legislation); moreover, negligence is referred as a civil
wrong or a tort. It can be inferred that negligence is an objective concept in which the behaviour
of the defendant is judged against the standard of a reasonable man (Excellent point, please
reference). Thus, the defendant need not be aware that his actions would result in the death of the
victim, but than the standard in Andrew v DPP (research this case and insert standard here.Thus,
it is not required to prove by law that the person was aware of the dire consequences and the
involved risk of his conduct falling under prescribed standards.4) Even under this circumstance,
the defendant negligently causes death of a person, and then the defendant may be prosecuted
under the required laws and even sentenced if convicted (not sure what you mean).
In a case (which case, insert name here) in North Yorkshire (you can keep North
Yorkshire if you want, I dont think it is really that relevant), a negligent pub owner was

Gross negligence manslaughter. 2013. [Online]. Available at: http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Grossnegligence-manslaughter.php [Accessed on: 25 November 2014]. (QUESTIONABLE SOURCE,
ITS NOT ACADEMIC)
Monaghan, N. 2014. Criminal law directions. Oxford University Press. Pp: 138-140.

convicted of gross negligence manslaughter and sentenced tofor two years in prison. After A
man, who was a regular customer at the pub, was plunged to death after mistook the cellar door
to be the gents toilets and upon opening it fell down the concrete steps to his death falling
through a cellar door.5 The man remained undiscovered to anyone as the bar owner was away to
attend a programme on health and safety. The victim, James Teasdale, was on a night out with his
friends when he mistaken the cellar door to be a gents toilet, and opened it. The cellar door went
down, and it had concrete steps. However, for the negligent behaviour of not putting enough
warning signs or locking the door for any passage, David Bell was jailed for two years. He was
the owner of Zest, the bar where the accident happened. The prosecution argued that the owner
of the pub was negligent (despite him not being present at the time of the incident) as he had not
put enough warning signs or locked the cellar door. Leeds Crown Court heard all the pleas and
analysed the evidence to find that The court held thatBell the defendant could have made
required arrangements to restrict the passage of customers through the cellar door, which was
just beside the ladies and handicapped toilets.6 It was a clear case of gross negligence
manslaughter as there had been several other incidents of regular customers mistaking the cellar
door for the toilet door. Furthermore, when the defendant had started the business in 2009The
court was informed that Bell has undertaken the restaurant business long back in 2009 and he
was aware that the cellar door could be dangerous for customers coming to the bar.7
5

Daily mail reporter. 2011. Negligent pub landlord jailed for manslaughter after customer plunged
down cellar steps. [Online]. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1369995/Landlord-jailed-manslaughter-man-plunges-death-cellar-door.html [Accessed on: 25
November 2014].

The Law pages: Sentences. 2014. [Online]. Available at: http://www.thelawpages.com/courtcases/David-Bell-6570-1.law [Accessed on: 25 November 2014].

Daily mail reporter. 2011. Negligent pub landlord jailed for manslaughter after customer plunged
down cellar steps. [Online]. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1369995/Landlord-jailed-manslaughter-man-plunges-death-cellar-door.html [Accessed on: 25
November 2014].

A critical analysis of the above mentioned example of gross negligence manslaughter,

based on the previously discussed concept, reveals that James Teasdale was plunged to death,
after falling from the unlocked door of the cellar, which could have been locked or banned for
any entrance (I am a little unsure of how that is a critical analysis, sounds like you are repeating
the facts of the case). In the case heard by the Leeds Crown Court (rather than all of that just put
the name of the case R v Bell, it was found that David Bell was at fault and had demonstrated an
act of sheer negligence, even after there was case of patrons falling through the cellar
door(sounds repetitive).8 (this reference is correct but also include R v Bell to it) It was evident from the evidence than
even regular customers failed to recognise that it was not a toilet, and fell prey to it. However, in
the earlier cases of falling through the cellar doors, there was not any reported death. The
defendant, Bell, never had any intentions of murder; however, there was a reported death, for
which the Leeds Crown Court penalised David Bell for an imprisonment of two years. (instead
of this whole paragraph why not try. One criticism of the case is the fact that although the
defendant could be held to be negligent in not erecting up a sign (despite his knowledge that his
not doing so could cause harm), it is perhaps unfair to sentence him to two years in prison, when
it is highly unlikely that he even wanted the victim harmed, let alone dead. In addition to the fact
that he was not at the pub at the time of the incident (find a reference for this).
Bell has acquired the bar way back in July 2009, and was aware of the cellar door that
leads to concrete steps to the basement; moreover, the cellar was just in the area of ladies toilet
and disabled toilet. In order to avoid any unwanted situation, only a small note was written on an

Court Case Timeline: David Bell. 2014. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-case-timeline/crime/6570/David-Bell-Leeds-Crown-CourtManslaughter-through-gross-negligence- [Accessed on: 25 November 2014].

A4 sheet, mentioning Private No Entry.9 Thus, the case engaging David Bell and the deceased,
James Teasdale demonstrates the concept of gross negligence manslaughter, which highlights the
usher negligence on the part of the bar owner and managers, in concern of the health and safety
of customers (I am not sure what you are trying to say by this paragraph).
Identification and discussion of the difficulties of imposing liability for gross negligence
manslaughter on corporation
In cases related to multinational corporations, it has been difficult to identify the core
liability of gross negligence manslaughter. The size of the corporation has a varying effect on the
implication of the law governing the imposition of liability on corporations. The idea of
imposing the liability is different from the concern of identifying the doctrine, which will be
applied to the case, relating a multinational corporation. 10 In certain cases, it may be an
inappropriate law to govern cases, which requires the establishment of criminal liability of the
corporation indulged in the case. Large multinational corporations have a complex hierarchy,
which has multilevel structures within the organisation.11
Organisations with multilevel structures tend to deny gross negligence manslaughter. It is
difficult to decide the main accuse, where a particular decision undergoes a number of steps. 12 So
it becomes difficult to mark a person who has taken the decision that has been a direct or indirect
cause of negligence manslaughter. It can be identified that the large size and complexity of the
9

The Law pages: Sentences. 2014. [Online]. Available at: http://www.thelawpages.com/courtcases/David-Bell-6570-1.law [Accessed on: 25 November 2014].

10

Great Britain: Law Commission. 2010. Criminal liability in regulatory contexts: a consultation
paper. UK: The Stationery Office. Pp: 107-108.

11

Ormerodm, D., Smith, C. and Hogan, B. 2011. Smith and Hogan's criminal law. 13th ed. New
York: Oxford University Press. Pp: 264-265.

Great Britain: Law Commission. 2010. Criminal liability in regulatory contexts: a consultation paper.
UK: The Stationery Office. Pp: 107-108.
12

multinational organisation gives them enough opportunities to escape certain obligations relating
to the decision commissioned in the past.13 Moreover, the action that has led to a particular
situation and caused gross negligence manslaughter is the summation of an array of decisions
taken under varying situations and intentions. Under these circumstances, companies tend to
avoid the liability of what has been the result to an array of decisions; moreover, it is also
difficult to obligate an individual due to the complex nature. So it can be inferred from the
aforementioned discussion that, the size of a corporation affects the imposition of the liability of
gross negligence manslaughter.14
In the R v P&O European Ferries (Dover) Limited case, it took approximately 24 years to
deliver a decision in relation to the sinking of a ship, which took the lives of 193 passengers and
crew members. The total number of passengers on board was 459, excluding 80 crew members.
It was estimated at a later stage that the maximum number of deaths was due to getting trapped
in the cold water, which was barely 2-3 degree centigrade. 15 All these incidents lead to the
prosecution of P&O European Ferries (Dover) Limited, along with the 5 individual members for
corporate manslaughter. As per the laws prevalent in that time period, one of the five accused
could have been prosecuted, and identified as the main decision-maker. However, this did not
happen in the R v P&O European Ferries (Dover) Limited case.
In the same context, Professor Gray Slapper has argued that courts could have adopted
aggregation principles, under which if the company was liable for an accident, directors and the
senior officials can be held for gross negligence manslaughter.16 Thus, it can understood from a
13

14

Heaton, R. and Than, C. 2010. Criminal Law. UK: Oxford University Press. Pp: 523-524.
M.Tariq, A 2013 look at the Corporate Killer (2014) 35(1) The Company Lawyer 17.

15

R v P&O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd [1991] 93 Cr. App. R. 72.

16

R v P&O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd [1991] 93 Cr. App. R. 72.

critical analysis of the R v P&O European Ferries (Dover) Limited case that, how the European
Ferries (Dover) Limited managed to avoid the charges under negligence manslaughter, which
was possible because of the complex and wide organisational structure(not sure what you are
trying to say here).17
Key provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (CMCHA)
2007
Under tThe Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (CMCHA) 2007, it has
been statesd that an organisation could be prosecuted and convicted if the activities or decisions
undertaken by the company cause deaths or amount to a gross breach of the required duties. The
provisions under CMCHA 2007 reveals that an organisation can be prosecuted if the organisation
was negligent to the duties that relate to the care and concern of the deceased. 18 A key feature of
the CMCHA 2007 reveals that an organisation is held guilty if activities or decisions undertaken
by the director and the senior management have substantially breached the standard code of
conduct expected from the organisation.
A company being prosecuted under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide
Act (CMCHA) 2007 need to prove four things. Firstly, that they are a company. Secondly, that
their decisions or activities have lead to the death of an individual or individuals.qualify the
essential of being a company, and the defendant companys decisions or activities have lead to
the death of an individual or more. Thirdly,Another element of the offence is the relevance of

17

18

Slapper, G. 1993. Corporate manslaughter: An examination of the determinants of prosecutorial

policy. Social and Legal Studies 2(4), Pp. 423443.
Corporate Manslaughter& Health and Safety Offences Causing Death. 2010. [Online]. Available
at:
http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web__guideline_on_corporate_manslaughter_acce
ssible.pdf [Accessed on: 25 November 2014].

care and health that the organisation owes towards the deceased, along with a gross breach of the
duty that is required to be followed by the organisation. 19 In similarity to other acts, CMCHA
2007 has some exceptions, under which the defendant cannot be prosecuted, so it is essential that
the organisational activities do not fall under the exemptions. Apart from other elements of the
CMCHA 2007, a significant element is the manner in which activities were managed by the
senior management of the organisation.
Under the act, CMCHA 2007, it is required that the prosecution must proves that the
breach was a significant cause of death. A more detailed view reveals that under Section 8 of
CMCHA 2007, the jury needs to examine how grievous was the health and safety related breach.
Apart from that, it is also required to be specified that how risky was the situation and how much
was the level of risk.
A critical analysis of elements that are followed under gross negligence manslaughter and
CMCHA 2007 reveals certain differences, which are related to the prosecution and the subject,
begin prosecuted. It is not possible for an individual to bring a private prosecution in case of a
new offence; moreover, it can be accepted after getting the consent from DPP (mentioned under
section 17 of CMCHA 2007).20 This not the case if an individual is being prosecuted under gross
negligence manslaughter.
Another differentiating feature relates to Section 18 in the law, which clearly states that
an individual cannot be prosecuted for aiding, counselling or helping in the commissioning of the
offence by an organisation. However, it is possible that the individual is prosecuted for activities
19

Business crime solicitors. 2014. [Online]. Available at: http://www.jmw.co.uk/services-forbusiness/business-crime-regulation/articles/corporate-manslaughter-and-corporate-homicide/

[Accessed on: 25 November 2014].

20

Corporate manslaughter. 2013. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/#a01 [Accessed on: 25 November
2014].

towards the organisation under the common law of gross negligence manslaughter.21 Thus, this is
the established differentiating feature between Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide
Act (CMCHA) 2007 and gross negligence manslaughter.

21

Corporate Manslaughter& Health and Safety Offences Causing Death. 2010. [Online]. Available
at:
http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web__guideline_on_corporate_manslaughter_acce
ssible.pdf [Accessed on: 25 November 2014].

References
Business crime solicitors. 2014. [Online]. Available at: http://www.jmw.co.uk/services-forbusiness/business-crime-regulation/articles/corporate-manslaughter-and-corporatehomicide/ [Accessed on: 25 November 2014].
Corporate Manslaughter& Health and Safety Offences Causing Death. 2010. [Online]. Available
at:
http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web__guideline_on_corporate_manslaught
er_accessible.pdf [Accessed on: 25 November 2014].
Corporate manslaughter. 2013. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/#a01 [Accessed on: 25
November 2014].
Court Case Timeline: David Bell. 2014. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.thelawpages.com/court-case-timeline/crime/6570/David-Bell-Leeds-CrownCourt-Manslaughter-through-gross-negligence- [Accessed on: 25 November 2014].
Daily mail reporter. 2011. Negligent pub landlord jailed for manslaughter after customer plunged
down cellar steps. [Online]. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1369995/Landlord-jailed-manslaughter-man-plunges-death-cellar-door.html [Accessed
on: 25 November 2014].
Davies, A. 2008. Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act: Special Report.
Cambridge: Workplace Law Group. Pp: 9-11.
Great Britain: Law Commission. 2010. Criminal liability in regulatory contexts: a consultation
paper. UK: The Stationery Office. Pp: 107-108.

Gross negligence manslaughter. 2013. [Online]. Available at: http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Grossnegligence-manslaughter.php [Accessed on: 25 November 2014].
Heaton, R. and Than, C. 2010. Criminal Law. UK: Oxford University Press. Pp: 523-524.
Lanham, D., Wood, D., Bartal, B. and Evans, R. 2006. Criminal laws in Australia. NSW:
Federation Press. Pp: 208-209.
M.Tariq, A 2013 look at the Corporate Killer (2014) 35(1) The Company Lawyer 17.
Monaghan, N. 2014. Criminal law directions. Oxford University Press. Pp: 138-140.
Ormerodm, D., Smith, C. and Hogan, B. 2011. Smith and Hogan's criminal law. 13th ed. New
York: Oxford University Press. Pp: 264-265.
R v P&O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd [1991] 93 Cr. App. R. 72.
Sixth form law. 2008. [Online]. Available at:
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod3a/3_32_involuntary/02_mans_gross_neg_actu
s.htm [Accessed on: 25 November 2014].
Slapper, G. 1993. Corporate manslaughter: An examination of the determinants of prosecutorial
policy. Social and Legal Studies 2(4), Pp. 423443.
The Law pages: Sentences. 2014. [Online]. Available at: http://www.thelawpages.com/courtcases/David-Bell-6570-1.law [Accessed on: 25 November 2014].