Political culture and corporate homicide liability in the UK and Europe

This chapter outlines recent developments in the emergence within Europe of systems of criminal law designed to hold corporate bodies liable where they cause the deaths of workers or members of the public. These changes point to the emergence of a new, more punitive, legal culture in relation to corporate crime. At the same time, however, there is evidence to suggest that this punitive culture is not uniform; different national jurisdictions reflect it to differing degrees. The chapter explores the degree to which the UK’s willingness to criminalise work-related deaths is mirrored elsewhere in Europe, and identifies some factors that might account for variations in this regard. In particular, attention is paid to the influence that social and political culture have on practices in this area. It is written as part of a research handbook on corporate crime in Europe, so has an eye on a more generalist audience in some regards.

Understanding the seriousness of corporate crime: Some lessons for the new 'corporate manslaughter' offence

The measurement of public attitudes towards the criminal law has become an important area of research in recent years because of the perceived desirability of ensuring that the legal system reflects broader societal values. In particular, studies into public perceptions of crime seriousness have attempted to measure the degree of concordance that exists between law and public opinion in the organization and enforcement of criminal offences. These understandings of perceived crime seriousness are particularly important in relation to high-profile issues where public confidence in the law is central to the legal agenda, such as the enforcement of work-related fatality cases. A need to respond to public concern over this issue was cited as a primary justification for the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. This article will suggest that, although literature looking at the perceived seriousness of corporate crime and, particularly, health and safety offences is limited in volume and generalist in scope, important lessons can be gleaned from existing literature, and pressing questions are raised that demand further empirical investigation.

Joint criminal enterprise

The doctrine of joint criminal enterprise is in disarray. Despite repeated judicial scrutiny at the highest level, the doctrine's scope, proper doctrinal basis and function in relation to other modes of complicity remain uncertain. This article examines the doctrine's elements and underlying principles. It argues that while joint criminal enterprise is largely used to make individuals liable for offences committed by their associates in excess of the common criminal purpose, its proper function is to police the limits of associate liability and thus to exculpate rather than inculpate. The doctrine governs not only instances of accessorial liability; it also applies where the parties involved are joint principal offenders. As this puts into question the prevalent view that joint criminal enterprise is a form of secondary participation that results in accessorial liability, the article concludes that it is best seen as a doctrine sui generis.

An inspector's-eye view - The prospective enforcement of work-related fatality cases

This paper concerns the prospective implementation of the proposed 'corporate killing' offence. These proposals suggested that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)-the body currently responsible for regulating work-related health and safety issues-should handle cases in which a 'corporate killing' charge is a possibility. Relatively little attention has been paid to this issue of implementation. An empirical investigation was undertaken to assess the compatibility of the HSE's methodology and enforcement philosophy with the new offence. It was found that inspectors categorize themselves as enforcers of criminal law, see enforcement action as valuable and support the new offence, but disagree over its use. They also broadly supported the HSE taking responsibility for the new offence. This suggests that 'corporate killing' may not necessarily be incompatible with the HSE's modus operandi, and there may be positive reasons forgiving the HSE this responsibility.