Crime XXXXXXIV - Involuntary Manslaughter X
With
regards to manslaughter charges brought against a corporation for the conduct
of its employees for example when the driver of a train drives too fast and as
a result a number of passengers that were on board the train lose their lives
in an ensuing accident, in order to convict the driver or the members of the
corporation responsible for ensuring the safety of the passengers, the
prosecution needs to establish 1) gross negligence and 2) that the gross negligence
can be attributed to someone in the corporation as opposed to the corporation
itself.
In
A-G's ref no 2 of 1999 (2000) the defendant, a rail operator, was charged with
manslaughter, following a train accident in which 7 passengers lost their lives.
During the trial it became evident that despite the driver being an experienced
driver, relevant safety procedures were not observed and it was the lack of
compliance or the inability to comply with the stipulated safety procedures at
that time, that had caused the accident.
The
attorney general referred the matter to the House of Lords on two points of
law: -
1. Can
the defendant be convicted of gross negligence without taking into account the
defendant’s state of mind? The answer is yes. The test that is to be applied is
the objective test and the defendant can be convicted for gross negligence
manslaughter without taking into account his state of mind, though it is easier
to do so if it can be established that he was reckless. Gross negligence is a
strict liability offence and therefore there is no need to establish mens rea
(or the mental element). It can be inferred by the defendant’s conduct.
2. However,
a corporation by itself cannot be convicted of gross negligence manslaughter
i.e. the gross negligence needs to be attributed to someone within the
corporation who fulfills the elements needed to establish the crime, in the
absence of which, the defendant cannot be convicted.
The
test to establish gross negligence is the objective test or the reasonable
man’s test see R v Adomako (1994) where the defendant was convicted for
manslaughter when the oxygen pipes supplying oxygen during a surgery got disconnected.
It is however easier to prove gross negligence when it can be established that
the defendant was reckless.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment