Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate Criminal Liability in England and Wales: Past, Present, and Future

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Corporate Criminal Liability

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 9))

Abstract

We usually think of law reform as a three-stage sequence in which an issue inadequately covered by existing law is identified, followed by proposals to fill that gap, leading to legislative change and improvement. The recent history of corporate criminal liability in England and Wales has transposed the last two stages of this process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter deals mainly with England and Wales but some legislation, particularly in the regulatory field, applies across all parts of the United Kingdom and thus includes Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  2. 2.

    The Law Commission’s program of criminal law reform has been interrupted by specific government referrals on bribery and homicide.

  3. 3.

    Consultation Paper No. 195, 2010, see further below at 3.6.

  4. 4.

    Either directly or via a common statutory “consent and connivance” provision, which links directors to corporate offenses, see Stark (this volume).

  5. 5.

    The chapter draws on a number of my publications: Wells 2001; 2006; 2008; 2009; 2010.

  6. 6.

    Friedman 2000 likens them to poltergeists. See, generally, Wells 2001.

  7. 7.

    See, generally, Hawkins 2002.

  8. 8.

    Wells 2010a.

  9. 9.

    Hart 1954. See also Hoffmann 2003, xiv.

  10. 10.

    Hart 1954, 56.

  11. 11.

    Hart 1954, 57.

  12. 12.

    Iwai 1999. See also Note 2001 observing the categories of human person, human non-person, and non-human person.

  13. 13.

    Iwai 1999, 593.

  14. 14.

    Harding 2007, Ch. 2 distinguishes organizations of governance and representation from organizations of enterprise, although the categories may overlap. Here I am talking more of organizations of enterprise.

  15. 15.

    R v. L (R) and F(J) [2008] EWCA Crim 1970 (Hughes LJ).

  16. 16.

    Harding 2007, Ch. 5, quoting Hart 1968, 265.

  17. 17.

    Harding 2007, 103.

  18. 18.

    From Hart 1968, Ch. IX. The discussion here is taken from Harding 2007, Ch. 5.

  19. 19.

    Much of the jurisprudence on the “directing mind” of the company derives from civil maritime liability cases. See cases cited in Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v. The Securities Commission [1995] 3 WLR 413.

  20. 20.

    Fisse/Braithwaite 1993; Gobert/Punch 2003; Leigh 1969; Wells 2001.

  21. 21.

    Broadly the view of Hart/Honore 1968, see Harding 2007, 111.

  22. 22.

    Broadly the view of Norrie 1991.

  23. 23.

    Harding 2007, 111.

  24. 24.

    See Harding 2007, 226 et seq.; Wells 2001, Ch. 4.

  25. 25.

    Wells 2001, 151.

  26. 26.

    Wells/Elias 2005, 155.

  27. 27.

    Harding 2007, Ch. 9.

  28. 28.

    Since 1827, Interpretation Acts have stated that, in the absence of contrary intention, the word “person” includes corporations: see now Interpretation Act 1978 c. 30. Courts in fact were generous in finding contrary intention and rarely did so when the offense required proof of fault.

  29. 29.

    HSW Act, s. 3.

  30. 30.

    HSW Act, s. 33. Section 40 provides that the onus is on the employer to show that all reasonably practicable steps have been taken. Weismann 2007 argues that liability should follow where corporation lacks adequate compliance.

  31. 31.

    R v. Chargot Ltd [2008] UKHL 73, para. 21. The Supreme Court has now replaced the House of Lords as the final appellate court.

  32. 32.

    [2008] UKHL 73, para. 29.

  33. 33.

    CPS 2010a, paras. 4.1 et seq.

  34. 34.

    CPS 2010b, para. 8.

  35. 35.

    CPS 2010b, para. 30.

  36. 36.

    R v. Cory Bros Ltd [1927] 1 KB 810.

  37. 37.

    Wells 2001, 93 et seq.

  38. 38.

    See, generally, Douglas 1992.

  39. 39.

    This is, of course, a caricature of a much more complex picture.

  40. 40.

    Quick 2006.

  41. 41.

    The Work Related Deaths Protocol for Liaison, which was introduced in 1998, has improved inter-agency cooperation.

  42. 42.

    As reported by the Centre for Corporate Accountability 2002.

  43. 43.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 1(5)(b).

  44. 44.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 20.

  45. 45.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 18.

  46. 46.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 18.

  47. 47.

    Ormerod/Taylor 2008.

  48. 48.

    Wells 2001 and 2005.

  49. 49.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 1(1).

  50. 50.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 1(3).

  51. 51.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 1(2).

  52. 52.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 28(3).

  53. 53.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 2.

  54. 54.

    R v. Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171.

  55. 55.

    LCEW 1996, cl. 4 (2)(b), emphasis added.

  56. 56.

    During the scrutiny of the Draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill in 2005.

  57. 57.

    R v. Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38.

  58. 58.

    CPS Guidelines (emphasis added).

  59. 59.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 1(4)(b).

  60. 60.

    R v. Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171.

  61. 61.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 8(2).

  62. 62.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 1(3).

  63. 63.

    S. 1(4)(c).

  64. 64.

    That is, it can be an adjectival or collective noun, Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1977.

  65. 65.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 3(4).

  66. 66.

    CPS Guidelines.

  67. 67.

    Ministry of Justice, Explanatory Notes, para. 27.

  68. 68.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 6

  69. 69.

    Sentencing Guidance Council 2010. See Davies 2010.

  70. 70.

    <http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter>.

  71. 71.

    See above n. 41.

  72. 72.

    CMCH Act (UK), s. 15.

  73. 73.

    OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, November 21, 1997, in force February 15, 1999.

  74. 74.

    See Wells 2009.

  75. 75.

    Parliament 2009.

  76. 76.

    Bribery Act 2010, s. 7. The commercial organization is liable for the actions of those associated with it, including those who perform services for it, employees, agents, and subsidiaries (s. 8).

  77. 77.

    The commission proposes that directors’ liability should be limited to proof of consent or connivance with the company’s offense and not, as in some regulatory statutes, inclusive of mere “neglect”. The delegation doctrine is of limited application where, for example, a license holder delegates performance of duties to another, see LCEW 2010, Pt. 10.

  78. 78.

    This chapter draws on Appendix C of the Consultation Paper, ‘Corporate Criminal Liability: Exploring Some Models’, Wells 2010b.

  79. 79.

    Criminal Code Act 1995, Act No. 12 of 1995 as amended, Pt. 2.5, Div. 12.

  80. 80.

    Para. 5.91.

  81. 81.

    Proposal 13, para. 5.110.

  82. 82.

    Proposal 14, para. 6.95.

  83. 83.

    Proposal 14, para. 6.96.

  84. 84.

    French 1984, 1 et seq.

  85. 85.

    Criminal Code Act 1995, Act No. 12 of 1995 as amended. The Australian Capital Territory has incorporated it in the Criminal Code Act 2002, including workplace manslaughter in Pt. 2A of the Crimes Act 1900.

  86. 86.

    Criminal Code Act 1995, s. 12.3(6).

  87. 87.

    Gobert/Punch 2003.

  88. 88.

    The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 empowers regulatory agencies to impose civil penalties.

  89. 89.

    Bussman/Werle 2006.

References

  • Bussman, K.-D. and M. Werle (2006), ‘Addressing Crime in Companies: First Findings from a Global Survey of Economic Crime’, British Journal of Criminology 46, 1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Corporate Accountability (2002), ‘New Statistics Show Sharp Increase in Death’, Newsletter: Corporate Crime Update 1, <http://www.corporateaccountability.org/Newsletter/Spring%202002.htm>.

  • Crown Prosecution Service (2010), ‘The Code for Crown Prosecutors’, <http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors>. [cited as Crown Prosecution Service 2010a]

  • Crown Prosecution Service (2010), ‘Corporate Prosecutions’, <http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_prosecutions>. [cited as Crown Prosecution Service 2010b]

  • Davies, N. (2010), ‘Sentencing Guidance: Corporate Manslaughter and Health and Safety Offences Causing Death – Maintaining the Status Quo?’, Criminal Law Review, 402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1992), Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisse, B. and J. Braithwaite (1993), Corporations, Crime and Accountability, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, P. (1984), Collective and Corporate Responsibility, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, L. (2000), ‘In Defense of Corporate Criminal Liability’, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 23, 833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J. and M. Punch (2003), Rethinking Corporate Crime, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, C. (2007), Criminal Enterprise: Individuals, Organisations and Criminal Responsibility, Cullompton, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. (1954), ‘Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence’, Law Quarterly Review 70, 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. (1968), Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. and T. Honore (1968), Causation in the Law, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, K. (2002), Law as Last Resort: Prosecution Decision-making in a Regulatory Agency, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, L. (2003), ‘Foreword’, in: A. Pinto and M. Evans, Corporate Criminal Liability, London, xiii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iwai, K. (1999), ‘Persons, Things and Corporations: The Corporate Personality Controversy and Comparative Corporate Governance’, American Journal of Comparative Law 47, 583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law Commission of England and Wales (1996), ‘Appendix A: Draft Involuntary Homicide Bill’, Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter, Report No. 237, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Commission of England and Wales (2010), Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts: A Consultation Paper, Consultation Paper No. 195, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, L. (1969), The Criminal Liability of Corporations, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice (2007), Explanatory Notes, Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2007/en/ukpgaen_20070019_en_1.htm>.

  • Norrie, A. (1991), ‘A Critique of Criminal Causation’, Modern Law Review 54, 685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Note, D. (2001), ‘What We Talk About When We Talk about Persons: The Language of a Legal Fiction’, Harvard Law Review 114, 1245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod, D. and R. Taylor (2008), ‘The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007’, Criminal Law Review, 589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parliament (2009), Joint Committee on the Draft Bribery Bill: First Report of Session 2008–09: Volume 1 together with Formal Minutes, HL Paper 115-I, HC 430-I, July 28, 2009, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quick, O. (2006), ‘Prosecuting “Gross” Medical Negligence: Manslaughter, Discretion and the Crown Prosecution Service’, Journal of Law and Society 33, 421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason, J.T. (1990), Human Error, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Guidance Council (2010), Corporate Manslaughter and Health and Safety Offences Causing Death, Definitive Guideline, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, F. (2011), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in Scotland: The Problems with a Piecemeal Approach’, in this volume.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weismann, M. (2007), ‘Why Punish? A New Approach to Corporate Criminal Liability’, American Criminal Law Review 44, 1319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, C. (2001), Corporations and Criminal Responsibility, 2nd edn, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, C. (2005), ‘Corporate Criminal Responsibility’, in: S. Tully (ed.), Research Handbook on Corporate Responsibility, London, 147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, C. (2006), ‘Corporate Manslaughter: Why Does Reform Matter?’, South African Law Journal 123, 646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, C. (2008), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in the UK: Much Ado About Nothing’, in: M. Nihoul, N. Colette-Basecqz, and S. Adam (éds.), La responsabilité pénale des personnes morales en Europe. Corporate Criminal Liability in Europe, Bruges, 283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, C. (2009), ‘Bribery: Corporate Liability under the Draft Bill 2009’, Criminal Law Review, 479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, C. (2010), ‘Corporate Crime: Opening the Eyes of the Sentry’, Legal Studies 30, 370. [cited as Wells 2010a]

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, C. (2010), ‘Appendix C: Corporate Criminal Liability: Exploring Some Models’, in: Law Commission of England and Wales, Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts: A Consultation Paper, Consultation Paper No. 195, London, 187. [cited as Wells 2010b]

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, C. and J. Elias (2005), ‘Catching the Conscience of the King: Corporate Players on the International Stage’, in: P. Alston (ed.), Non State Actors in International Law, Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law, vol. XIII, Oxford, 141.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Celia Wells (Professor of Criminal Law)

Authors
  1. Celia Wells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Celia Wells .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Faculty of Law, University of Basel, Peter Merian-Weg 8, Basel, 4002, Switzerland

    Mark Pieth

  2. , Faculty of Law, University of Basel, Peter Merian-Weg 8, Basel, 4002, Switzerland

    Radha Ivory

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wells, C. (2011). Corporate Criminal Liability in England and Wales: Past, Present, and Future. In: Pieth, M., Ivory, R. (eds) Corporate Criminal Liability. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0674-3_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation