Crime XXXXXX - Involuntary Manslaughter VI
In
R v P & O European Ferries (Dover) (1991) (Corporate Manslaughter) we look
into the possibility of holding a company responsible for the reckless act(s)
of its employee(s) which subsequently leads to the death of those who have
entrusted the company with their lives (corporate manslaughter). The captain of
a ferry and five of his crew members failed to close the main loading doors on
a cross-channel ferry and as a result a few hundred passengers lost their
lives.
The
first question we need to ask was why an action was brought in criminal law and
not in tort (civil law), where the chances are higher that compensation would
be paid out for example see Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd (1976) (physical injury) or
Barrett v Ministry of Defense (1995) (loss of life)?
Secondly,
does vicarious liability (a legal doctrine that imposes a liability on another
by virtue of a legal relationship or a special relationship with the tortfeasor
(the person who committed the tort)) extend to criminal law? The general rule
is that vicarious liability does not extend to criminal law.
In
order to obtain a conviction for corporate manslaughter: -
1. We
need to identify the “controlling mind” of the company which is easier when
company decisions are made by one person as opposed to a group of people. In
the latter (where there is more than one person involved in making the day to
day decisions of running the company it becomes more difficult to narrow down
the “controlling mind”)
2. Once
we have identified the “controlling mind”, we need to establish that the
“controlling mind” was reckless in the legal sense of the word.
The
company was found to be not guilty of manslaughter. That however does not mean
that companies cannot be liable or cannot be found guilty of manslaughter see R
v OLL Ltd (1994)
In
R v Reid (1992) the defendant was driving on a dual carriageway and overtook
another car on the left or the nearside and hit a hut that was close to the
road as a result of which a passenger who was in the car with him was killed.
The
defendant was found to be guilty of manslaughter. The test for recklessness
cannot be limited to the subjective test and it includes failing to appreciate
an obvious risk.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment