corporate manslaughter Flashcards
what is corporate manslaughter
when a business or management of acitivties cause the death of another person
what do companies have to make the company criminally liable
the legal personality
what are the different elements of corporate manslaughter
-duty of care
-gross breach of duty -causing death
-serious management failure
what is the first element of corporate manslaughter
provide a require standard of care to employees
what is the second element
gross breach of duty causing death
what does gross breach of duty mean
must consider include how serous the failure was and how much of a risk of death is posed.
what will the jury also consider in gross breach of duty
nay evidence which shows there were attitudes, policies or systems within the organisation which contributed to the failure of care
what two catorgiries will I have to explain for causing death
factual and legal causation
what are the elements for factual causation
but for test
what is the but for test
if the act didn’t happen then would the outcome sill be the same?
what case links to the but for test
r v white
what happens in the r v white case relating to the but for test
White gave poison to his mother who died. However, medical evidence proved that the mother had died from a heart attack and that the poison was in no way connected to the death. Therefore the defendant’s behaviour did not contribute in any way to the resulting death.
what does the de minimise test
the defendant has to be more than minimal cause of the victims death
what is the case for the de minimise test
r v pagett
what happens in the case r v pagett relating to the de minimise test
under siege from armed police had taken his pregnant girlfriend hostage and was using her as a shield to avoid arrest by the police. During the standoff, he fired his shotgun at the police who returned fire in defence. Pagett used his girlfriend as a human shield. As a result, she was killed in the crossfire. Pagett was charged with manslaughter on the basis that his actions had caused the death of his girlfriend. However, Pagett argued that it was the actions of the police that had caused her death and not his own.
The court held that neither a reasonable act taken for the purpose of self-preservation, nor an act done in the execution of a legal duty, could constitute a novus actus interveniens for the purposes of the causal chain. The court reasoned that although the police had fired the fatal shot, Pagett’s actions had contributed significantly to the chain of events that led to the death of his girlfriend
