Kicking Corporate Bodies and Damning Their Souls

Author(s): C. M. V. Clarkson
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Modern Law Review, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jul., 1996), pp. 557-572
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Modern Law Review
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1097227 .
Accessed: 24/03/2012 15:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and Modern Law Review are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Modern Law Review.

http://www.jstor.org

KickingCorporateBodies and DamningTheirSouls

C.M.V. Clarkson*
In the fiercecontroversy
over corporatecriminalliability,one phraserings
theliterature:
a companyhas 'no soul to be damnedand no bodyto be
through
kicked.'"Less oftenquotedare the wordsthatprecededthese: 'Did you ever
to have a conscience?'and theones thatallegedlyfollowed
expecta corporation
them:'by God, itoughtto haveboth.'2The argument
in thisarticleis that,forthe
of
the
criminal
modem
law,
purposes
companiescan be regarded(at least
as
both
and
bodies
souls that,through
thecensureand
metaphorically) having
of
can
be
both
kicked
and
in
damned
the
stigma punishment,3
hopeof inculcating
a corporateconscience.

The context
Interest
in thissubjectis theresultof two setsof developments.
First,therehas
been a seriesof highlypublicised'disasters'in whichlargenumbersof persons
have been killed.In 1988 therewas thePiperAlpha oil rigexplosionin which
167 people were killed,withthe alleged cause being 'mundanedesignfaults,
humanerrorandunsafeworking
In 1987therewas theKing'sCross
conditions.'4
firein which31 people died, thecause beingthefailureof the variousgroups
to identify
theirrespective
and individualswithintheoverallcorporatestructure
in 1987 therewas the Zeebrugge
Most infamously,
areas of responsibility.s
Herald of Free Enterprise,
'disaster'in whichthe ferry,
capsized killing192
people.The officialenquiryfoundthat'fromtop to bottomthebodycorporate
was infectedwiththe disease of sloppiness... The failureon the partof the
of Leicester.
*Professor
of Law,University
article:
The quotewas givenwidepublicity
1 Edward,FirstBaronThurlow.
byCoffee'sinfluential
intotheProblem
ofCorporate
"'No Soul toDamn:No Bodyto Kick": An Unscandalized
Inquiry
L Rev 386.
Punishment'
(1981) 79 Michigan

ibid.

The Cullen Report,Public InquiryintothePiper Alpha Disaster (London: HMSO, 1990) Cm 1310,

will
oncompanies
otherthanthefinethatcouldbe imposed
3 Thewiderangeofpossiblepunishments
andeven
in thisarticle.Forpenaltiessuchas equityfines,corporate
notbe considered
probation
could includeincarceration
see Coffee,ibid. Otherradicalalternatives
dissolution,
through
of publicdirectors
nationalisation
and theappointment
(Box, Crimeand Mystification
temporary
wouldbe
(London:Tavistock,
1983)p 72) orincarceration
whereby
companies
through
'quarantine,'
'Criminal
or barredfromspecificareas(Meister,
to engagein certainactivities
forbidden
Liability
inFisseand
forCorporations
thatKill' (1989-90)64 TulaneL Rev919,946). See alsotheproposals
and
Collectivism
Crime:Individualism,
ofResponsibility
forCorporate
'TheAllocation
Braithwaite,
(1988) 11 SydneyL Rev468.
Accountability'

between
thedayandthe
in communications
was a breakdown
foundthatthecauseof thedisaster
a pressure
Thedayshifthadremoved
pump;thenight
safetyvalvefroman injection
nightshifts.
aboutpotentially
hadpreviously
receivedspecificwarnings
shiftwerenottoldof this.Occidental
theprevious
in communications.
Therehadbeena similarbreachof safety
breakdowns
dangerous
yearwhichhadcausedthedeathofone employee.

Fennell Report,Investigationintothe King's Cross UndergroundFire (London: HMSO, 1988) Cm

499.

C The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1996 (MLR 59:4, July).Publishedby BlackwellPublishers,

108 CowleyRoad, OxfordOX4 IJF and 238 Main Street,Cambridge,MA 02142, USA.

557

TheModemLaw Review

[Vol.59

was a contributory
cause of
to giveproperandcleardirections
shoremanagement
thedisaster.'6
Secondly,therehas been an increasedawarenessof thenumbersof persons
annuallybeingkilledand seriouslyinjuredin theirplaces of work.In thelast 10
years,some 5,774 people have been killedat work.7In 1993/94therewere379
In thesame year,28,924personssustained
peoplekilledin workplaceincidents.
seriousinjuriesat theirworkplace.8
These deathsand injuriesweretheresultof
violentincidents- people being 'crushed,electrocuted,
burnt,
asphyxiated,
Thesefiguresmerelyrepresent
cases. It
drowned,
reported
impaledand so forth.'9
to the
thatonlyone-sixth
of 'accidents'at workare reported
has been estimated
In addition,it is calculatedthatsome 10,000workersdie annually
authorities.'0
disease."
fromtheeffectsof industrial

The practice
Fromthisgruesomelitanyof deathsand injuries,thereasonableobservermight
to combat
haveexpectedthecriminal
justicesystemto havebeenactivein trying
such corporateviolence. When a doctor,for instance,kills throughgross
formanslaughter
can, and sometimesdoes, follow.12
negligence,a prosecution
Whencompanieskill and injure,however,the practiceis different.
Only one
and prosecutions
forother
companyhas everbeen convictedof manslaughter'13
seriousoffencesare virtually
unknown.
Thereare twomainreasonsforthis.The firstrelatesto enforcement
procedures
and publicattitudes
mouldedby themedia,thestateand companiesthemselves.
Whenpersonsare killedor seriouslyinjuredat work(even whentheyare not
employees),thetypicalresponseis to describethisas an 'accident'- whichin
turnstructures
theofficialresponse.In an attempt
to increasesafetyat workand
preventsuch 'accidents,'theHealthand Safetyat WorkAct 1974 makesit an
offenceforan employerto breacha duty'to ensure,so faras is reasonably
14Thisand
thehealth,safetyandwelfareat workofall hisemployees.'
practicable,
6

of Transport,
TheMerchantShippingAct 1894, myHerald ofFree Enterprise,
Department
Reportof

CourtNo 8074 (SheenReport)(London:HMSO, 1987),at para 14.1.Other'disasters'thathave

contributed
tothegrowing
clamour
forcorporate
haveincluded
theClaphamJunction
accountability
raildisaster
in 1988,wherefaulty
traincrashin
causedthedeathof35 people,thePurley
signalling
claimsthatBritish
Rail management
1989,wherefivepeoplewerekilledand therewerestrong
hadcontributed
tothecrash,andthesinking
oftheMarchioness
onthe
cruiser
shortcomings
pleasure
Thamesin 1989,with51 peoplebeingkilledincircumstances
inanunsuccessful
thatresulted
private
formanslaughter
of thecompanythatownedthedredger
that
prosecution
againstfourmanagers
collidedwiththeMarchioness.
7 Thisfigure
reflects
thenumber
ofreported
deathstoemployees,
theself-employed
andmembers
of
thepublicfromworkplace
incidents
from1983to 1992/93
Annual
Commission,
(HealthandSafety
fewerthanthenumber
of
Report1992/93(London:HMSO, 1993) p96). This is onlyslightly
homicides
andinfanticide)
overthesameperiod(Criminal
recorded
(6,606formurder,
manslaughter
Statistics
killedat workhave
Englandand Wales(London:HMSO, 1993)Cm 2680).The numbers
beendecreasing
overthepastdecade.
gradually
8 Healthand SafetyCommission,
AnnualReport1993/94(London:HMSO, 1994).In comparison,
werethevictims
ofreported
attacks(Criminal
16,526persons
Statistics,
ibid).
'majornon-fatal'
9 Slapper,'Corporate
An Examination
of theDeterminants
of Prosecutorial
Manslaughter:
Policy'
[1993]SLS 423,427.

10 Health and Safetyat Work,April 1992, p 8.

11 Bergman,Deaths at Work:Accidentsor CorporateCrime(London: WEA, 1991) p3.

12 Adomako
(1994) 99 Cr AppR 362.

13 Kite and Others,The Independent,9 December 1994.

14 s 2(1).

558

? The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1996

July1996]

Bodiesand DamningTheirSouls
KickingCorporate

othersimilaroffences
undertheActaredrafted
without
towhether
a
anyreference
workeris killedor injuredor not.The crimeis simplythe failureto maintain
This standsin strongcontrastto the availableoffences
propersafetystandards.
whenpersonsarekilledorinjuredoutsidetheirworkplaces,
whicharestructured
in
termsof the seriousnessof the harmcaused. This is truenot only in cases of
personalviolence,but also underthe Road TrafficAct 1988. The different
structure
of the healthand safetyoffencescontributes
to theoverallsense that
deathand injuryat workis not 'realcrime.'
"5
The main body set up to enforcethis legislationis the Healthand Safety
Executive(HSE), whichhas the powerto notifycompaniesthatcertainsafety
or to bringa criminalprosecution.
mattersrequireattention,
The resultis that
whensomeoneis killedor seriouslyinjuredat workit is extremely
rareforthe
to
conduct
an
into
the
the
usual
incident.'6
Instead,
police
investigation
practice
aftera deathor seriousinjuryat workis foran investigation
to be conductedby
theHSE. However,theHSE does notregarditsprimary
function
as beingone of
butratheras one of 'assistingand advisingthegenerality
initiating
prosecutions,
of well-conducted
The HSE, also
companies,and ofdetermining
good practice.'17
under-manned18and under-resourced,
will only press chargesin cases thatit
believesrepresent
a flagrant
breachof the 1974 Act,withtheresultthatonly35
percentofworkplacedeathslead to companiesbeingprosecuted
bytheagency.19
In 1993/94,forexample,theHSE commenced1,793prosecutions
yet,in contrast,
issued10,523notices(improvement
61.5 percentofall
notices,whichconstituted
noticesand deferred
notices,immediate
notices).20While
prohibition
prohibition
it can be arguedthatthereare distinctadvantagesin issuingnoticesratherthan
when dealing with strictliabilityoffences,21the same
initiating
prosecutions
claim can hardlybe made whencorporatewrongdoing
has caused thedeathor
seriousinjuryof workers.Whena prosecution
is brought,
it tendsto be in the
court(60 per cent),as thisis quickerand cheaperforthe HSE.22
magistrates'
Until 1992 the maximumfinetherewas ?2,000 (now raisedto ?5,000 forall
and to ?20,000 forbreachesof sections2-6 of the 1974 Act24).The
offences23
averagefinein all courtsin 1993/94was ?3,061.25 Despitethefactthatthisfigure
NewCrimesfortheTimes'[1994]
15 Forthisreason,theproposalinGobert,'Corporate
Criminality:
He arguesthatthefocusincorporate
offences
shouldbe on thecreation
CLR 722,mustbe rejected.
in termsof results'makesa
offences
of riskslikelyto lead to seriousharmandthatstructuring
ofconsequences'
conviction
(at p 729).
subjectto thefortuity
theHomeOfficenortheHSE keepstatistics
on this,butBergman's
research
revealedthat
16 Neither
between1989and 1991,outof a totalof 1,016deathsat work,therewas onlya criminal
police
inonecase (op citn 11,at p 17).
investigation
17 Healthand SafetyExecutive,AnnualReport1988/89(London:HMSO, 1989). See generally
Rulesand Government
Baldwin,
Press,1995)pp 125-192.
(Oxford:Clarendon
of inspectors
in the1980s(Baldwin,ibidp 172).
bad cutsin theirnumbers
18 The HSE suffered
19 Bergman,
op citn l1, at p 17.
20 HealthandSafetyCommission,
op citn8, at p 129.
21 Leigh,Strictand Vicarious
(London:Sweet& Maxwell,1982)pp84-100.
Liability
409: 'an inspector
'ThePowerofAccidents'
22 Hutter
andLLoyd-Bostock,
(1990)30 BritJCriminol
oron a publicinquiry
is notoutmaking
visitstootherpremises'
on a prosecution
(p421).
working
each
a prosecution
an averageof threeperson-days
and presenting
takesinspectors
Preparing
inthe
thattheP&O manslaughter
(Baldwin,op citn 17,atp 146).Ithasbeenestimated
prosecution
in theBoardroom'
'Recklessness
CrownCourtcostsome?10 million(Bergman,
(1990) 140NLJ
1496).
Act 1991,s 17(2)(c).
Justice
CourtsAct 1980,s32(9), as amended
23 Magistrates'
bytheCriminal
24 Offshore
SafetyAct 1992,s4(2).
25 HealthandSafetyCommission,
op citn8.
1996
? The ModernLaw ReviewLimited

559

TheModernLaw Review

[Vol.59

thewordsof theDirectorGeneralof theHSE are

has beensteadilyincreasing,26
stillapposite:'thelaw was specifying
higherpenaltiesforthedeathof bluebells
of police powersby the primarily
thanpeople.'27This displacement
regulatory
even in thosecases
HSE simplymarginalises
corporatecrimeand contributes,
to thegeneralfeelingthatsuchdeathsabd injuries
wherethereis a prosecution,
are notreally'crime'or theproductsof corporateviolence.
ofcorporate
crimeis reinforced
Thismarginalisation
bytheprocedures
adopted
at inquestsintoworkplacedeathswherea verdictof 'accidentaldeath'is virtually
automatic.28
Bereavedfamilieshaveno right
tolegalaid at inquestsandwhenthey
oftenfinancedby a tradeunion,29
thesolicitors
are usuallymore
are represented,
directorswith
interestedin civil compensation.30
and
Company managers
for
are
seldom
called
as
witnesses.31
such
procedures
Again,
responsibility safety
thecurrent
roleof theHSE, at theexpenseof thepolice,and
simplylegitimate
thatthesedeathsare 'accidents.'
reinforce
publicconceptions
violencerelatesto
The secondreasonforthelackofcriminalisation
ofcorporate
thedifficulty
of obtaininga convictionunderthepresentlaw. The criminallaw
was developed as a mechanismfor respondingto individualwrongdoing.
Individualscan be held responsibleand blamed for theiractions.Stigmatic
can be used to marktheappropriate
punishment
degreeof censure.Particularly
whendealingwithcrimesinvolvingmensrea, such individualistic
notionsof
do notnaturally
andcouldonlybe
responsibility
encompassartificial
organisations
appliedby humanising
companiesin the sense of breakingthemdown,metahumancomponentsto see if therewas an
phorically,into theirunderlying
individualwithinthecompanywhohad committed
theactusreusof a crimewith
the appropriate
mensrea. This individualmustbe sufficiently
in the
important
structure
to
be
said
to
the
mind
and
will,32
corporate
represent company'sdirecting
and forhis or heracts to be identified
withthecompanyitself;in suchcircumliable(as wellas theindividual).
stances,thecompanycouldbe directly
criminally
This 'identification
doctrine'became the establishedand main routeto the
of corporatecriminalliability,
at least forcrimesinvolvingproofof
imposition
mens rea.33

Thisapproachof 'humanising
forsmallownercompanies'mightbe appropriate
where
it
is
not
too
difficult
to
a
senior
individual
with
managedcompanies
pinpoint
whom the companycan be identified.Indeed,the one successfulcorporate
26

27

28
29
30
31
32

33

560

In 1990/91theaveragefineimposedfollowingan HSE prosecutionwas ?903. However,it mustbe

stressedthattheseoverallaveragesare being pushedup by a fewenormousfinesbeing imposedin
individualcases - forexample,in 1993 a fineof ?200,000 was imposedon the ChannelTunnel
ConsortiumTML afterthe deathof a workercrushedbetweentwo trains(see Slapper, 'Corporate
Punishment'(1994) 144 NLJ 29). It would seem thatthe amountof fines being imposed in the
majorityof cases has not risento any markedextent.
Bulletin21, in (1991) 491 IndustrialRelationsReviewand
(1991) 187 Healthand SafetyInformation
Report.The averagefineimposedon a companyin all cases (bothCrownand Magistrates'Court)in
1991-92 afterconvictionin cases wheredeath resultedwas ?994 (Health and SafetyCommission,
Annual Report1991/92(London: HMSO, 1992)).
Bergman,op cit n 11, at p 40.
ibid at p43.
Slapper,op cit n9, at p 433.
Wells, Corporationsand CriminalResponsibility
(Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1993) p42.
As DenningLJputitfamouslyin HL Bolton(Engineering)Co Ltd v T.J.Graham& Sons Ltd [1957]
1 QB 159, 172: 'A companymayin manyways be likenedto a humanbody.It has a brainand nerve
centrewhichcontrolswhatitdoes. It also has handswhichhold thetools and act in accordancewith
directionsfromthe centre.'A companycan only be identifiedwiththose sufficiently
high in the
as to representthe 'brains' of thecompanyas opposed to the mere 'hands.'
corporatestructure
Tesco Supermarkets
Limitedv Nattrass[1972] AC 153.

0 The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1996

July1996]

KickingCorporateBodies and DamningTheirSouls

convictionwas againstjust sucha company.In Kiteand Others,34

manslaughter
offourteenagers
the
death
following
duringa canoeingtripinLymeBay,boththe
that
the
OLL
Ltd,
company,
organised canoeingtripand its managingdirector,
were
of
As thetrialjudge,OgnallJ,putit: 'Mr Kite
convicted
Kite,
manslaughter.
and thecompany,OLL, of whichhe is managingdirector,
standor falltogether.
in thiscase
One forall and all forone.'35Therewerefurther
distinctive
features
the conviction.First,the risksinvolvedwere clearlyobvious and
facilitating
was necessary
serious,andcouldbe so perceivedbyanyone;no technical
expertise
to understand
just how dangerousthe activitieswere.Indeed,thecompanyhad
that
fromformer
instructors
in 'chillingly
clearterms'36
receivedwritten
warnings
at thecentre.Second,theLeisure
fatalities
couldresultunlesssafetywas improved
at thattimewas notsubjecttoinspection
Centreindustry
bytheHSE.37 Thismeant
thatblamecouldnotbe deflected
to theagencyand,further,
helpedto ensurethat
was formanslaughter
ratherthanan offenceunderthe
the ensuingprosecution
Healthand Safetylegislation.
and over
doctrine38
However,thereare majorproblemswiththisidentification
thatitsimplydoes notreflect
thepastdecadetherehas beena growingrealisation
in largercompanies.39
The doctrine
modemcorporate
particularly
practice,
ignores
whichis oftenthe productof
the realityof modemcorporatedecision-making
corporatepoliciesand proceduresratherthanindividualdecisions.In the P&O
case (which resultedfromthe capsize of the Herald of Free Enterprise),for
forsafety.If
who withinthecompanywas responsible
instance,it was uncertain
thehumancausersofthedeathsin thatcase, one would
one wereto trytopinpoint
haveto listtheassistantbosunwhofailedto close thebow doors;thebosunwho
failedto superviseand checkon theassistantbosun;thecaptainwho set offat
boat withoutcheckingwithanyonethatthe
maximumspeed in an overcrowded
of TownsendCar FerriesLtd
doorshad been closed; and, finally,thedirectors
buthad
(takenoverby P&O) who had beentoldof previousopen-doorincidents
thatat theendofthe
takenno action.On factssuchas these,itis hardlysurprising
case thetrialjudge,TurnerJ,directedacquittalsagainstP&O and the
prosecution
It could notbe provedthattherisksof open-door
fivemostsenioremployees.40
no mensrea could
the
to
of
seniormanagers;
were
obvious
accordingly,
any
sailing
to thecompany.
be attributed
attracted
As a resultof theintensepublicity
by theabove cases, thetidedoes
seem to be turning.More prosecutions(relatively)are being broughtfor
34 op citn 13.
BehindBars,' HealthandSafety
at Work,
'TheCompany
35 CitedinSmithandSmith,
1995,
February
p 10.
36

Health and Safetyat Work,January1995, p4.

tobe licensed.
See HealthandSafety
forunder-18s
forall adventure
centres
37 Therearenowproposals
November
at Work,
1995,p 5.
a
seniorpersonswithin
whether
levelthereis theinevitable
38 At an interpretive
relatively
quandry
incaseswheredutieshave
the'brains'ofthecompany,
canbe saidtorepresent
especially
company
Co v T.J.
Boal [1992]BCLC 872 withBolton(Engineering)
forinstance,
beendelegated.
Compare,
in Tescov Nattrass
Graham& Sons[1957]QB 159,a decisionapproved
(n33 above).
thataround90 percentof all
estimates
theGovernment
39 Whilethereare no officialstatistics,
and
'SmallBusinesses
are'small'(1985)Cmnd9749,para8.5. See generally
Freedman,
companies
of
Form:Burdenor Privilege'(1994) 57 MLR 555, 567. However,thedefinition
theCorporate
'small' unders249(3) of theCompaniesAct 1985meansthatfairlysizeablecompaniescan be
classedas 'small.'
40 R v Alcindorand Others(CentralCriminal
Court,19October1990).See Bergman,
op cit n22;
NLJ
609.
141
of
Criminal
'The
(1991)
Liability
Corporations'
Buries,
ReviewLimited1996
? The ModernLaw

561

TheModernLaw Review

[Vol. 59

manslaughter.41Greaterfinesare being imposedunderthe Healthand Safety

thecentraldebatestillrageson: shouldcompaniesbe
Nonetheless,
legislation.42
heldcriminally
and,if so, how?
responsible

Corporateor personalliability?
The firstquestionis whetheranythingis gained by corporateconvictionsas
and punishing
theindividualswithinthecompany.Some
opposedto convicting
within
thecompanythataremostamenableto
wouldarguethatitis theindividuals
andthatinordertodetera companythefineswouldneedtobe massive.
deterrence
ifitsexpectedcostsexceeditsexpectedgains.43
A companywillonlybe deterred
the'deterrence
here
with
Thereis a further
trap':thisis wheretheriskof
problem
will
as a deterrent.44
low
that
no
is
so
Particularly
operate
penalty
apprehension
withcorporatehomicide,whereonlyone companyhas ever been convictedin
fineswouldbe ineffective
England,itmightwellbe thateventhemostastronomic
it is the particular
In termsof incapacitation
and rehabilitation,
as a deterrent.
or
whoaretheoneswhoshouldbe removedfromofficeordisciplined,
individuals
of a
made to improvetheirworkpractices.Finally,it is arguedthatpunishment
of innocentshareholders,
companyby way of a fine amountsto punishment
or the public who will
creditors,employeeswho mightbe made redundant,
have to beartheburdenof thefine.In short,theones who will really
ultimately
will be thosewhomthelaw is aimingto protect.
suffer
Such arguments,
however,missthecentralpoint.If it is thecompanythatis
When
then
it
is
the
and punishment.
culpable,
companythatdeservesprosecution
than
with
would
that
someone
other
individuals,
nobody
seriouslyargue
dealing
the culpable agent should be prosecutedon consequentialistgrounds.If
individualswithinthecompanycan be pinpointed,
one mightwell
blameworthy
wish to prosecutethemadditionally.
of such individuals
However,prosecution
andinappropriate
alonemightbe pointless
as itignoresthecorporate
that
pressures
structure.
One mightsimplybe
mighthavebeenplaceduponthembythecorporate
the'vice-president
forgoingtojail,'45and theinstitutional
responsible
punishing
will
and
continue
after
thesacrifice.
Evenwithsmallclose-held
practices pressures
there
is
a
case
for
criminal
strong
liabilityand removing
any illegal
companies
willusuallybe shareholders
as in suchcompaniesthedirectors
andso will
profits,
be penalisedbya lossofprofit,46
andencouraged
tocorrect
thepractices
thatledto
thewrongdoing.
If it is thecompanythatis to be blamedfortheharmcaused,itis thecompany
thatdeservesthe stigmaand shamingassociatedwith the adversepublicity
attachedto a criminalconviction.47
It is a tellingfactthatthe relativesof the
41

See, forexample,the manslaughter

prosecutioncommencedagainstJacksonTransport(Ossett) Ltd
afterthe death of an employee who died while cleaning a road tankervehicle which contained
chemicalresidues(Healthand Safetyat Work,August1995,p4). In Hong Kong recently,
a company
was convictedof corporatemanslaughter
forthefirsttimeafterpleadingguilty(Health and Safetyat
Work,July1995, p5).
42 op cit n26.
43 Coffee,op cit n 1,at p 389, drawingon theworkof Posner,EconomicAnalysisofLaw (Boston: Little
Brown & Co, 2nd ed, 1977), at p 167. See also Baldwin,op cit n 17, at pp 134-135.
44 Coffee,ibid at p 390.
45 Braithwaite,CorporateCrimein the PharmaceuticalIndustry(London: Routledge,1984) p 308.
46 Cartwright,
'Defendantsin ConsumerProtectionStatutes:A SearchforConsistency'(1996) 59 MLR
225, 235.
47 The names of individualdirectorswill usuallymean nothingto the public.

562

C The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1996

July1996]

BodiesandDamningTheirSouls
Kicking
Corporate

victimswhodied on theHeraldof Free Enterprise

wereprimarily
interested
in a
of
P&O
and
not
of
the
Even
the
seemed
of
prosecution
prosecution
individuals.48
similarmind when it droppedthe chargesagainstthe two most immediate
'causers'of thesinkingas soon as thejudge had directedacquittalsagainstP&O
and itsseniorexecutives.Perhapstherewas a realisation
thattheassistantbosun
shouldneverhavebeenleftina positionwheretheentiresafetyoftheferry
andits
passengersdependedon himwithout
anyadequatesystemof checksor controls.
The truefaultlaywiththecompany.Further,
in manycases therewillbe no single
individualresponsible
fortheparticular
thatlead to the
policiesand procedures
harm.Manylargecorporations
resultant
have complexstructures
whichmakeit
difficult
foroutsidersto ascertainwho is responsiblefora particular
decision.
the
can
the
most
institutional
Punishing company trigger
appropriate
response,in
thatthecompanyis in thebestpositionto identify
and disciplineitsemployees.
Onlyinthiswaycan one hopefora positivecorporate
responseofimplementation
of appropriate
safetyprocedures.
Withregardtotheargument
thatpunishing
topunishment
of
companiesamounts
innocentshareholders
and createsrisksof redundancies,
itmustbe bornein mind
thatsuch personsare not themselvessubjectto the stigmaof convictionand
criminalpunishment.
Those who take the benefitsshould also shoulderthe
burdens.A companyshouldnotbe permitted
to 'cutcornersin itsdesireto make
and in particular
foritsshareholders,
it mustnotcutoverheadcostsat the
profits
to:
expenseof safety.'49Notto punisha companyat faultis to allowcorporations
accumulateand distribute
to associatesa pool of resourceswhichdoes notreflectthe social
cost of production.Justiceas fairnessrequires,as a minimum,thatthe cost of corporate
offencesbe internalised
by theenterprise.50

Direct or vicariousliability?
is howcompaniesshouldbe heldcriminally
The nextquestionforconsideration
in
The
flaws
the
identification
doctrine
havealreadybeenexposed.An
responsible.
started
tocircumvent
therigours
alternative
devicecourtshaverecently
employing
doctrinehas beenthatof vicariousliability.For instance,in
of theidentification
v AlfredMcAlpineHomesEast,51twoemployeesof a
NationalRiversAuthority
and thesiteagent,acceptedresponsibility
the
site
forcausing
manager
company,
to section85(1) of the Water
wet cementto entercontrolledwaterscontrary
on thebasisthatthey
ResourcesAct 1991.Attheirtrialthecompanywas acquitted
doctrineof Tesco v Nattrass.
liableundertheidentification
could notbe directly
However,on appeal by way of case stated,the DivisionalCourtappliedthe
and
of vicariousliability.Lookingat thepurposeofpollutionlegislation,
doctrine
it
a
that
mind
it
was
with
strict
held
the
in
offence,
liability
only
dealing
bearing
suchlaws,wherethepollutionwilloftenbe causedbypersonsof
wayofenforcing
andCorporate
Crime'(1989) 139NLJ931.
48 Wells,'Manslaughter
49

Law Com No 237, Legislating the CriminalCode: InvoluntaryManslaughter(London: HMSO,

1995)para7.24.
shareholders
can
beenarguedthatconcerned
50 FisseandBraithwaite,
op citn3, atp 508.Ithasfurther
are notimplemented
or sell theirsharesifthemeasures
seekto havesafetysystems
implemented
and CriminalLiability'(1995) 6 CriminalLaw Forum1, 29).
(Colvin,'Corporate
Personality
stakesin the
it seemsunlikely
thatmostshareholders,
otherthanthosewithsubstantial
However,
wouldbe awareof theabsenceof suchsafety
systems.
company,
51 [1994]CLR 760.

C The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1996

563

The ModernLaw Review

[Vol. 59

was byimposing
vicariousliability
on the
low positionin thecorporate
hierarchy,
company.
is that...
In this context,Wells suggeststhat 'the generalunderstanding
and ... direct(liability)to
vicariousliability... appliesto strictliabilityoffences
a mentalelement.'52
This approachhas foundsupport.In R v
offencesrequiring
BritishSteelplc,53theCourtof Appeal,havingdecidedthatsection3(1) of the
Healthand Safetyat WorkAct 1974 was an offenceofstrictliability,
concluded,
doctrinecouldnotapply:
or ratherassumed,thattheidentification
criminal
itwoulddrivea juggernaut
If... (anoffence
wereoneof)absolute
liability,
through

wherethe
couldavoidcriminal
schemeif corporate
thelegislative
liability
employers
whois notthedirecting
mind
ofthe
eventis committed
bysomeone
company.
potentiallynharmful
The positionis, however,notthatstraightforward.
First,thedoctrineof vicarious
liabilityhas now been appliedbeyondtheconfinesof strictliabilityoffencesto
offencesof negligenceor hybridoffences(ie primafacie strictliabilityoffences
which providedue diligenceor reasonableknowledgedefencessuch as are
ithas beenarguedthatthe
commonin consumer
Further,
legislation).55
protection
doctrine
was appliedin Re SupplyofReadyMixedConcrete(No 2)56 to thecrime
mensrea.57 However,whilethereare dicta
of contempt,
an offencerequiring
withsuchan approach,58
consistent
turnedon thewordingof
liabilityultimately
whichprohibited
orderthecompanieshadallegedlybreached,
each
therestraining
its
servants
or
or
from
'whether
itself
or
by
by
agents otherwise'
giving
company
effecttorestrictive
practiceagreements.
Secondly,theHouseofLordshasrecently
rejectedthe notionthatvicariousliabilitycan necessarilybe imposedin strict
In SeaboardOffshore
Ltdv Secretary
a
offences.
ofStateforTransport,59
liability
undersection31 of theMerchantShippingAct 1988,
companywas prosecuted
whichmakesitan offenceto failto takereasonablestepsto securethata vesselis
A ship'senginehadbrokendownthreetimeswithin24
operatedina safemanner.
her
at sea. The chiefengineerwhowas responsible
forthe
hours,leaving drifting
oftheshiphadboardedthevessellessthanthreehoursbefore
mechanicalrunning
it setsail,in circumstances
whereit was acceptedthathe neededsomethreedays
to familiarisehimselfwiththe machinery.
He thenmade a seriouserrorof
judgmentin openinga wrongvalve,causingtheenginesto floodwithwater.The
companywas convictedin the magistrates'court,but the House of Lords
ofinterpretation
anditspolicy(itwouldbe
concludedthatas a matter
ofthestatute
if
Parliament
intended
that
the
of
owner
the
surprising
shipbe liableforanyact
committed
no
matter
how
such
as
thefailurebythebosun
byanyemployee,
lowly,
or cabinstewardto close portholes),
thecompanycouldnotbe vicariously
liable
forbreachof a dutyundersection31 fortheacts of its servantsor agents.The
House of Lords wenton to stressthatthisconclusionappliedirrespective
of
whether
theoffencewas one ofstrictliabilityor not.60

52 Wells,'Corporate
andConsumer
Protection:
Tescov Nattrass
Revisited'
(1994) 57 MLR
Liability
inCorporate
forCrime'(1995) 145NLJ1326;Cartwright,
817; Wells,'A QuietRevolution
Liability
op citn46, at p227.
53 [1995]ICR 586.
54 ibid593.

55
56
57
58

See, forinstance,Tesco StoresLtd v BrentLBC [1993] 2 All ER 718, discussedby Wells,op cit n52.
[1995] 1 All ER 135.
This is the interpretation
adoptedby Wells (1995), op cit n52, at p 1327.
op cit n56, at pp 142C, 149C, 150E.

60

ibid 105.

59 [1994]2 All ER 99.

564

? The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1996

July1996]

KickingCorporateBodies and DamningTheirSouls

Whatifthechiefengineer's
It is difficult
toreconcilethesetwolinesofauthority.
waters?
actionsin the Seaboard case had resultedin thepollutionof protected
The positionappearsto
Wouldthecompanystillhaveescapedcriminalliability?
be thatwhetherthe doctrineof vicariousliabilityapplies or not is a matterof
andpolicyofthe
statutory
takingintoaccountthelanguage,content
interpretation,
In theNationalRivers
whether
vicarious
and
law,
liabilitywillassistenforcement.
case, thelaw could onlybe madeeffective
by holdingthecompanyvicariously
liable,61 whereasin the Seaboard case, the statute,
passed in the wake of the
the
aimed
at
and
its policies and safety
was
disaster,
company
Zeebrugge
In NationalRivers,the
mechanisms
rather
thantheaberrant
actionsofunderlings.
offences
couldonlybe committed
byemployees.In Seaboard,thereasonablesteps
undertaken
could havebeeneasilyand effectively
by thecompanyitself.
A morepromisingapproachwas recentlyadoptedby the PrivyCouncil in
Asia Ltd v SecuritiesCommission.62
MeridianGlobal FundsManagement
In this
two
senior
investment
used
case,
managers,employedby Meridian,improperly
theirauthority
to investin a New Zealand company.By doingthis,Meridian
noticeofsubstantial
breacheda New Zealandstatute63requiring
investments
to be
givento the companyand the stockexchange.The questionwas whetherthe
to Meridian.Rejecting
knowledgeof theinvestment
managerscouldbe attributed
thedoctrineof vicariousliability,
thePrivyCouncilheldthata personhad to be
foundwithinthecompanywhoseacts and knowledgecould be attributed
to the
Lord
Hoffman
was
not
to
limit
the
however,
company.Significantly,
prepared
mindandwill.' Such
attribution
ofknowledgeon thebasisofthetestof 'directing
and only appropriate
in certain
were a 'generalisation'
'anthropomorphisms'64
cases.65In othercases:
fortheparticularsubstantive
rule.This is
thecourtmustfashiona special ruleof attribution
always a matterof interpretation:
giventhatit was intendedto applyto a company,how was
it intendedto apply? Whose act (or knowledge,or state of mind) was for thispurpose
intendedto countas the act etc. of thecompany?66

to acquirethe
The answerwas simple.The investment
managershadtheauthority
Theirknowledgehadto be attributed
to thecompany,
otherwise
relevantinterests.
the policy of the statute('to compel,in fast-moving
markets,the immediate
of personswho becomesubstantial
holdersin
disclosureof theidentity
security
would
be
defeated.
publicissuers'67)
doctrineis of greatimportance
and
This reinterpretation
of the identification
ofcompaniesina broaderrangeof
criminalliability
opensthedoortoestablishing
entereda majorcaveat:
cases. However,LordHoffman
theirLordshipswould wish to guard themselvesagainst being understoodto mean that
to do an act on itsbehalf,knowledgeof that
whenevera servantof a companyhas authority
in each
to thecompany.It is a questionof construction
act will forall purposesbe attributed
case as to whethertheparticularrulerequiresthattheknowledgethatan act has been done,
to thecompany.68
or thestateof mindwithwhichit was done, shouldbe attributed
The sameis trueof Tescov Brent,n55 above.
[1995]3 All ER 918.
Amendment
Act 1988,s20(3) and(4).
Securities
n62 above,926.
Co Ltd [1915] AC 705, wheretheperson
As in Lennard'sCarrying
Co Ltd v AsiaticPetroleum
MrLennard,
was theshipowner
in thecompany
functions
forall therelevant
himself,
responsible
mindandwill'ofthecompany
whowas the'directing
(n62 above,925).
66 n62 above,924 (italicsin original).
67 ibid927.
68 ibid928.
61
62
63
64
65

C The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1996

565

The ModernLaw Review

[Vol. 59

Lord Hoffman
thenproceededto give theexamplethata companywouldnotbe
because its employee,authorised
to drivea lorry,killed
of
guilty manslaughter
someoneby recklessdriving.69
Thereare problemswiththisapproach.First,it is unclearwhentheacts of a
the directingmindand will of the companyare to be
personnot representing
ruleto fitthe
to thecompany.How does one tailorthisnewattribution
attributed
is thisto be done
rule'?70How,forinstance,
'termsandpoliciesofthesubstantive
Or is thesubtextherethatthis
fora commonlaw offencesuchas manslaughter?
offencessuch as thosein theMeridiancase?
can onlybe done forwhite-collar
Someone(a
Secondly,it mustbe stressedthatthisis stilla ruleof attribution.
whodid thecriminal
humanbeing)mustbe foundwithinthecorporatestructure
to thecompany.In otherwords,in complex
acts beforeliabilitycan be attributed
therewillstill
suchas P&O whereno suchpersoncan be identified,
organisations
be no criminalliability.

Corporateculpability
rules
A betterapproachwouldbe to effecta completebreakfromall attribution
liable.This,however,raisesa
and hold companies,as such,directlycriminally
to moral agentsand many
centralissue. Culpabilitycan only be attributed
have argued that companies,for these purposes,cannot be
commentators
faultsin a
agents in theirown right.Any organisational
culpability-bearing
Forexample,Susan
ofhumanactivity.7'
mustbe derivative
company'soperations
and
Wolfargues,by analogywithsociopathswho lack emotionalunderstanding
as whollymorallyresponsible
are notregarded
consciences,and therefore
agents,
becausetheytoo lackemotional
cannotbe morallyresponsible
thatorganisations
In herwords,'they
criminalliabilityis inappropriate.72
capacitiesand therefore
lack the unifiedconsciousnessnecessaryfor feeling.To put it differently,
lack souls.'73She goes on to conclude,however,thatorganisations
organisations
can be practicallyresponsiblebecause theyhave thecapacityto be guidedby
moralgoals and constraints
and, if theyfailto do so, shouldbe madeliablefor
for
the
thatis, civil liabilityonly.
consequences,
paying
need not
Such an analysis must be rejected.First,moral responsibility
necessarilyinvolve'emotionalcapacityto be movedby moralconcerns.'This
wouldsurelyinvolveourholdingthecold andcallouspersonwhois unmovedby
or gainto lack moral
anymoralconcernsand simplyoperatesforpersonalprofit
Even with'sociopaths'it is clear thatbothlaw and moralityis
responsibility.
at leastto someextent.Theycertainly
preparedto holdsuchpersonsresponsible,
69 ibid.
70 ibid.

71

Sullivan, 'ExpressingCorporateGuilt' (1995) 15 OJLS 281. This view was echoed in Meridian
whereLord Hoffmanstatedthat'thereis no such thingas thecompanyas such' (ibid 923).
72 Wolf, 'The Legal and Moral Responsibilityof Organisations'in Pennock and Chapman (eds),
CriminalJustice:Nomos 27 (New York: New York UniversityPress, 1985): 'It seems wrong,in
to blamethem,in thedeep sense,forfailingto constraintheirbehaviouraccordingto rules
particular,
they are incapable of being motivatedto obey' (pp 278-279). A similar view is expressed by
Arenellawho argues thatmoralresponsibility
involvesan actorbeingcapable of moralevaluations
which can be incorporatedinto practicaljudgmentsabout how to act (Arenella, 'Convictingthe
MorallyBlameless: ReassessingtheRelationshipbetweenLegal and Moral Accountability'(1992)
39 UCLA L Rev 1511).
73 Wolf,ibid at p 279.

566

C The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1996

July1996]

KickingCorporateBodies and DamningTheirSouls

do not lack responsibility

to the degree necessaryfor a findingof lack of
(ie
Theydo notlack cognitivecapacityor theabilityto
responsibility insanity).
in
practical
engage
reasoning,or to exercisecontrolover theiractions- the
classic hallmarksof responsibility.
While the law mightwell regardthemas
in some cases (namely,wheremurderis reducedto
lackingfull responsibility
ofdiminished
on grounds
itseemsindisputable
that
manslaughter
responsibility74),
fortheiractionsand are therefore
theybearsomemoralresponsibility
capableof
beingaccuratelydescribedas moralagents.Finally,theWolf testof emotional
becauseofitsfailureto
capacitycannotbe acceptedas a generaltestofculpability
the
extensive
role
of
Given
negligenceas a basis of
encompassnegligence.
in
criminal
it
seems
intopure
law,
hardly
plausibleto retreat
culpability English
thatis onlyconsistent
and devisea rationaleof culpability
subjectivist
thinking
witha cognitivetheoryof mensrea.
thecapacityand thecharacter
Thereare two75 maintheoriesof responsibility,
theory.The capacitytheory,based largelyon the work of Hart,76views a
responsibleagentas one thatis capable of reasonand capable of exercising
to complywiththelaw. A moralagenthas a fair
control,and choosingwhether
Because theagentcan chooseto do otherwise,
to
avoid
wrongdoing.
opportunity
of
we areentitled
tojudgethechoicesmadeandblametheagentifwe disapprove
in relationtocorporate
thechoicemade.The advantageofthistheory,
particularly
is thatit
liability,whichwill so oftenbe based on a failureto takeprecautions,
In makingchoiceswe expectactors
liability.
encompassesandexplainsnegligence
to takereasonablestepsto avoid causingharmor exposingothersto risk.When
theyact in disregardof such obviousrisks,we are entitledto blame themfor
degreeof care.
failingto exercisetheappropriate
on theotherhand,insiststhatwe holdpersonsresponsible
The character
theory,
for those actions that express theircharacter.Causing harm intentionally,
traitof practical
an undesirablecharacter
demonstrates
recklesslyor negligently
to others;suchharmis theproductofa bad character."Thus,persons
indifference
forexample,duress,arenotexpressing
whoactwithvalidexcusesorjustifications,
Because theyhave beencompelledto act in thatparticular
theirusual character.
and blameis notdeserved.
is inappropriate
of flawedcharacter
way,an inference
This theoryclearlyexplainsnegligenceliability.A personwho fails to take
character
trait- thatofa careless
an undesirable
reasonablecareis demonstrating
or indifferent
person.We mightnotlay thesamedegreeof blameat theirdooras
to
who manifests
withtheintentional
malevolence,78butindifference
wrongdoer
of
character
trait
an
undesirable
nevertheless
is
the rightsof others
deserving
censure.
as moral
can encompassorganisations
ofresponsibility
Boththesemaintheories
ofthe
in
their
own
as
of
right,
irrespective
agentscapable beingregarded culpable
thatthe'sociopath'lacked'theabilityto exercise
to establish
74 Eventhenit is probably
necessary
acts.'See Byrne(1960) 44 Cr AppR 246.
tocontrol
physical
willpower
ofa GeneralTheory'
The Possibility
'Criminal
75 Fortwoalternative
views,see Horder,
Culpability:
an
193,whodiscussesthe'defiancetheory'andhimself
suggests
(1993) 12 Law and Philosophy
inthesenseofexplaining
ofculpability
is nota theory
Thislatter
however,
theory,
'agencytheory.'
frombeingblameworthy,
as an agent,as distinct
as blameworthy
whya personcan be regarded
ill
itcannottellus thebasisuponwhichthementally
becausea harmhasbeencaused.Forinstance,
as a moralagent.
couldbe regarded
a company
andwhether
couldorcouldnotbe heldresponsible
and Responsibility
Press,1968).
76 Hart,Punishment
(London:OxfordUniversity
(1982) 1 Law and
77 See generallyBayles, 'Character,
Purposeand CriminalResponsibility'
Philosophy5; Lacey, State Punishment:Political Principles and CommunityValues (London:

78

1988)pp 65-68.
Routledge,
Horder,op cit n75.

C The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1996

567

TheModernLaw Review

[Vol.59

of the humanagentsbehindthefacade.Companiestodaycannotbe
culpability
of individuals.Much corporatedecisionviewed as a simpleconglomeration
and lines of
structures
making,policyand behaviourdependson organisational
withinthecorporation,
withresponsibility
forstandard
such
authority
procedures,
as thoserelating
to safety,
thecompany.As such,under
beingspreadthroughout
thecapacitytheory,
theexerciseofcontrolandthechoicebetweenvariouscourses
ofactioncan oftenonlybe fairly
attributed
tothecompanyitself.A system
(orlack
of it) maywellhavebeensetup beforeanyoftheincumbent
arrived
on
personnel
thescene.A corporation
'marcheson itselephantine
to its
wayalmostindifferent
In implementing
successionofriders.'79
orfailingto implement
a policyorsystem,
it is thedecision-making
of thecompanythatis opentojudgment,
whether
praise
or blame.As in the P&O case, it mightbe impossibleto assess whyno safety
or to pinpointany individualwho could be held
systemhad been introduced
for
the
failure.
The
as a company,had failedin itsduties;it
company,
responsible
was thecompany
thatwas responsible
andblameworthy.
Itfailedtotakeadvantage
of a fairopportunity
to avoid wrongdoing
and can be adjudgedculpable.
underthecharacter
theabsenceofpropersafetysystems
in an
Similarly,
theory
demonstrates
an undesirable
character
traitof practicalindifference.
organisation
The boardof P&O had beenwarnedof thedangersofpreviousopen-door
sailing
and allegedly respondedwith facetiouscomments.80
The 'sloppiness' that
'infected'the company'fromtop to bottom,'8'and the resultant
harm,can be
as
the
the
bad
character
of
of
the
itself
and
notjustof
regarded
product
company
theseniorpersonnel.
is theresultofa
Where,as in theP&O case,thewrongdoing
it is difficult
to assertthatthisdemonstrates
'bad character'
on the
systemfailure,
whomighthavehadno time,opportunity
tochange
orauthority
partofindividuals
thesystem- or perhapsno knowledgeof itsdeficiencies.
tothesearguments,
a companycan be a culpability-bearing
According
agent.As
Wells has argued,companiesshould be viewed as free-standing
'intelligent
machines'thatcan be blamedfortheirpolicies,procedures
andsystems.82
In order
to reflectthis,English law needs to abandon the identification
doctrine.A
butone rejectedbyEnglishlaw,84is theaggregation
doctrine
solution,83
suggested
underwhichone wouldaggregate
all theactsand mentalelementsof thevarious
led totheharmful
personsinthecompanywhoseactionsorinactions
cumulatively
result.Thus,in theP&O case, one wouldaggregatetheactsand mentalelements
of theassistantbosun,thebosun,thecaptainand severalof thedirectors
so that
be
held
to
have
on
behalf
of
the
committed,
together
theymight
company,the
elementsof thecrime.
doctrine
mustalso be rejectedas, again,notreflecting
However,theaggregation
andreality.
All itdoes is perpetuate
thepersonalisation
corporate
decision-making
of companiesmyth.Insteadoftrying
to findone personwithwhomthecompany
can be identified,
one simplyfindsseveralsuchpersons.Whilethisapproachdoes
79
80
81
82

83
84

568

Boulding,The OrganizationalRevolution(New York: Harperand Brothers,1968) p 139, cited in

Fisse and Braithwaite,
op cit n 3, at p497.
The Times,8 July1987, p2. My thanksto Paul Robertsforthisreference.
op cit n6.
Wells,op cit n 31, at p 92. See also Fisse and Braithwaite,
op cit n 3; Dan-Cohen,Rights,Personsand
Organizations:A Theoryfor BureaucraticSociety(London: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1986);
of CorporateMisconduct'
Foerschler,'CorporateCriminalIntent:Towardsa BetterUnderstanding
(1990) 78 CaliforniaL Rev 1287.
Wells, op cit n48; Colvin, op cit n50, at pp 18-23.
R v HM Coronerfor East Kent,exp Spoonerand Others(1989) 88 Cr App R 10.
? The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1996

July1996]

Bodiesand DamningTheirSouls
Kicking
Corporate

doctrinein thatpersonslower in the

have advantagesover the identification
can be includedin the equation,it restricts
one, to adapt
corporatehierarchy
that2 + 2 = 4 anddoes notenableone to take
to theproposition
Wells' metaphor,
rulesand policiesaccountof companies'organisational
structures,
procedural
morethansimply
thatmakecompaniessomething
in short,theessentialmatters
thatin such
thesum of theirhumancomponents.
Or, to continuehermetaphor,
cases 2 + 2 = 5.85

Structuring
corporateliability
forthecriminal
Once thiscentralpremiseis accepted,itoughtnotto be difficult
law tocaptureandexpressthenotionthata companyis morethanthesumtotalof
andthata companyitselfcan committhebasicelementsof
itshumancomponents,
a criminaloffence.
initialquestionarisesat thispoint.Shouldcompaniesbe
However,an important
orshouldspecialoffences,
as individuals
thatcan only
liableforthesameoffences
In
be
created?
relation
to
the Law
be committed
by companies,
manslaughter,
Commissionhas opted for the lattersolutionin proposinga new crime of
'corporatekilling.'86This offencewould be committedwhen there was a
failure'(as opposedto 'operational
negligence'byan employee)that
'management
'fell far below what could reasonablybe expectedof [the company]in the
This proposed offencewould be additionalto the Law
circumstances.'87
Commission'snew offencesof recklesskillingand killingby grosscarelessness
wouldreplacetheexistingcrimeof involuntary
(whichtogether
manslaughter),
and companiescould still be convictedof these othernew offencesif the
doctrinecouldbe satisfied.88
identification
incases such
convictions
Thisproposalhas theadvantagethatitwouldfacilitate
that
caused
thedeaths.
as P&O wheretherewas clearlya 'management
failure'
for
should
be
resisted
two
reasons.
is
and
this
solution
First,
However,
problematic
whileit wouldremovesome of theobstaclesto a corporateconvictionwherea
death has resulted,it would have no effecton any otheroffencethatcan be
theidentification
doctrine
committed
offences,
by a company.For all remaining
or vicariousliabilityimposed.Indeed,bylancing
wouldstillhaveto be overcome,
for
thereis thedangerthatpressure
boil(corporate
themostcontroversial
killings),
would
subside.
of
criminal
law
the
reform
of
Second,
liability
corporate
general
couldmeanthatcorporate
thecreationofa separateoffence
andcritically,
killings
or the new substitute
from'manslaughter'
would be perceivedas different
of thestigmaand seriousnessof the
offences.This could lead to a downgrading
in termsof
to its continuedmarginalisation
new offence,and could contribute
thereare
or bygrosscarelessness,
If a companyhas killedrecklessly
enforcement.
forthefulloffencewillconvey
reasonsthatonlya conviction
strongfair-labelling
85 Wells,op citn31, at p 88.
atwork'
of'manslaughter
fora newoffence
86 op citn49,paras8.1-8.77.See alsotheTUC's proposal
(TUC, Paying the Pricefor Deaths at Work(London: TUC, 1994)).

87 ibidat para8.34.
of
is convicted
has proposedthatwhena corporation
88 ibid at para 8.77. The Law Commission
to takesuchstepsas is
killingthecourtshouldhave powerto orderthecorporation
corporate
whichhasbeena causeofthedeath(para8.76).Itwould
toremedy
considered
anymatter
necessary
ofreckless
is convicted
appearfromtheReportthatthispowerwillnotbe availableifthecompany
to
Suchpowersoughtclearly
anoversight.
Thisis presumably
orkilling
bygrosscarelessness.
killing
convictions.
be availablein all casesofcorporate
?

The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1996

569

TheModernLaw Review

[Vol.59

theappropriate
ofthecrimeandcommunicate
degreeof
adequatelytheseriousness
of
the
wrongdoing.89
rejection
Accordingly,
companiesshouldbe liable forthesame offencesas individuals
Withregardto the
ofcriminalliability.
and subjectto thesamenormalprinciples
it was thecompany'spositive
thefirstissue is whether
actus reusrequirements,
effluent
intoa river)or omissionsto act (forexample,
acts(forexample,pumping
harm.Withregard
a safetysystem)thatcausedtheprohibited
failingto implement
to imposea generalduty
ithasbeenarguedthatitmightbe necessary
toomissions,
to preventtheiroperationscausingharm90.
However,such a
upon corporations
measureseems unnecessaryas such companiescould almost inevitablybe
construedas havingcreateda dangeroussituationby operatingin an unsafe
thedangers
and therefore
wouldbe undera commonlaw dutyto prevent
manner,
materialising.91

than
causationshouldbe no greater
Next,theproblemofestablishing
corporate
incases wherethecompany's
incases ofhumancausation.Thereis littledifficulty
lead to theharm,say pollution;anydisputesaboutthe
and procedures
operations
naturalcauses93 can be
of thirdparties92or intervening
alleged intervention
Whataboutthecase whereitis theactions
determined
underthenormalprinciples.
result?Again,the
lead to theprohibited
or inactionsof an employeethatdirectly
solutionseems clear. If the employeeis actingwithinthe scope of his or her
and duties,the companycannotclaim it did not cause the result
employment
fornon-strict
as we shallsee, itmightbe able todisclaimresponsibility
(although,
has proposedan
To emphasisethispoint,theLaw Commission
offences).
liability
failurecan be a cause of a person'sdeath,
expressprovisionthata management
As intort,
this
cause is theactoromissionofan individual.94
eveniftheimmediate
will even includean employeeactingin a mannerexpresslyforbidden
by the
avoid
for
a
to
otherwise
It
would
be
too
liabilityon the
company
easy
company.
manner.95
basis thatit had ordereditsemployeesnotto act in a negligent
On the
otherhand,iftheemployeeis actingoutsidethescope of hisor heremployment,
becomesa thirdpartyand theissueofcausationfallsto
thenhe or sheeffectively
underthegeneralprinciples.
be determined
for more serious
Withregardto the culpability(or mens rea) requirement
and
can exhibitits
a
its
crimes, companythrough corporatepolicies
procedures
for
can
committed
own culpability.
be
instance,
by grossnegliManslaughter,
failsto institute
thenecessarysafetyprocedures,
gence.96If a companyblatantly
to the companyitself.To paraphraseBrent
grossnegligencecan be attributed
Fisse:
(recklessnessor negligence),and a
Corporatepolicyis thecorporateequivalentof intention
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96

For a discussionof theprincipleof fairlabelling,see Ashworth,

Principlesof CriminalLaw (Oxford:
ClarendonPress,2nd ed, 1995) p 86; Williams,'Convictionsand Fair Labelling' [1983] Cambridge
LJ 85.
Colvin, op cit n 50, at p 26.
Miller [1983] 2 AC 161.
As in, forexample,NationalRiversAuthority
v YorkshireWaterServices[1995] 1 All ER 225. See
Padfield,'Clean Waterand MuddyCausation:Is Causationa Questionof Law or Fact,or Justa Way
of AllocatingBlame?' [1995] CLR 683.
As in, forexample,SouthernWaterAuthority
v Pegrumand Pegrum[1989] CLR 442.
op cit n49, at para 8.39.
Jones,Textbookon Torts(London: BlackstonePress,4th ed, 1995) p 279. This is also theposition
underthecriminaldoctrineof vicariousliability:see Law Com No 237, op cit n49, at paras 6.236.26.
Adomako,n 12 above.

570

C The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1996

July1996]

Bodiesand DamningTheirSouls
Kicking
Corporate

orimplied
thatconducts
itself
withanexpress
witha
company
policyofnon-compliance
criminal
exhibits
criminal
prohibition
corporate
(culpability).97
The Law Commission,in proposingthenew offenceof corporatekilling,has
recommendedthat the requisite culpabilitystandardshould be that the
failure'constitutes
conductfallingfarbelow whatcan reasonably
management
in the circumstances.'98"
This differsfromthe
be expectedof the corporation
Commission'stest for the offenceof 'killingby gross carelessness,'which
additionally
requiresthat'the riskof deathor seriousinjurywould have been
obvious to a reasonablepersonin her position,and thatshe was capable of
fromtheoffence
thatrisk.'"99The omissionof thislatterrequirement
appreciating
of corporatekillingis based on theLaw Commission'sview thatcompaniesare
entitiesand therefore:
onlymetaphysical
is a
a humanbeingwhocouldbe in thesamepositionas thecorporation
to hypothesise

of
toenquire,
as intheoffence
bemeaningless
anditwouldtherefore
logicalimpossibility,
tosucha person.
whether
theriskwouldhavebeen'obvious'
bygrosscarelessness,
killing
inthis
inthesenseinwhich
weusethatterm
haveno 'capacity,'
Moreover,
corporations
whether
toenquire
the
toanindividual,
so itwouldbeequally
inrelation
impossible
report
therisk.l'?
toappreciate
hadthecapacity
defendant
corporation
This approach misses the centralpoint that, while corporationsare only
thisdoes notpreventthembeingculpability-bearing
entities,
agents
metaphysical
who throughtheirrules,policies and operationalprocedurescan exhibitthe
The Law Commission's
requisitedegreeof mensrea and be blamedtherefor.
can easilybe
proposedgeneraltestfortheoffenceof killingbygrosscarelessness
appliedto companies.The issue would be whetherthe riskswould have been
in thatpositionand whether
thecorporation
obviousto a reasonablecorporation
thatthe
had thecapacityto appreciatetherisks.Of course,thislatterrequirement
in
will
be
of
little
risks
to
have
significance practice
capacity appreciate
company
have thiscapacityif therisks
will necessarily
becausea company,by definition,
ifcorporate
areobvious.0'1However,itis important,
killingsareto be condemned
thatliabilitybe limitednot only to cases wherethe company's
appropriately,
be expected,butalso to cases where
conductfellfarbelowwhatcouldreasonably
obvious
to
other
would
have
been
therisks
Application
companiesinthatsituation.
of thesame testto bothindividualsand companieswill serveto emphasisethat
by individuals.
corporateoffencesare not'poorcousins'of crimescommitted
issuerelatesto theburdenofproof.The CouncilofEurope
The one outstanding
or thoseof itsemployeeslead
a company'sactivities
has proposedthatwhenever
to a prohibited
harm,the companyshouldbe primafacie liable; the evidential
burdenwouldthenswitchto thecompanyitselftoprovethatithada safetysystem
thatcouldnotbe faulted.102At firstsightthisapproachmightseemquestionable,
in thatit involvesholdingall offencescommitted
bycompaniesto be offencesof
strictliabilitywithdue diligencedefencesattached(ie in reality,offencesof
or recklessness)
negligence)whenproofof mensrea (in the formof intention
to Monetary
Law andCorporate
Criminal
in Corporate
97 'RecentDevelopments
Penalties'
Liability
added).
(1990) 13 UNSWLJ 1, 15 (wordsin parenthesis
HomicideBill,cl 4(l)(b).
98 op citn49; Involuntary
99 ibidat para8.2.
100 ibidat para8.3.
101 Thereis simplyno roomforan argumentbased on Elliot v C (a minor)(1983) 77 Cr App R 103 that
a corporationis backwardor in some otherway unable to appreciaterisks.
102 Council of Europe,Liabilityof Enterprises
for Offences,RecommendationNo R (88) 18 (1990) pp
6-7.
C The ModernLaw ReviewLimited1996

571

TheModernLaw Review

[Vol.59

wouldbe requiredifthesameoffencewerecommitted
However,
byan individual.
could
be
Ashworth
hasarguedthatbecause
sucha differential
justifiable.
approach
in spheresof suchpotential
of theirenormouspowerand operations
danger,there
is no injusticein holdingcompaniesto a higherstandardof criminalliability
attraction
is that,withcompany
providedfair warningis given.'03A further
thisapproachmightbe theonly
to outsiders,
oftenbeingimpenetrable
operations
routeto convictions.However,cautionis necessaryhere.This proposalwould
workwell forthoseoffenceswithwhichcompaniesare traditionally
associated,
food and drugs,and so on - mostof
such as pollution,consumerprotection,
whichare alreadyoffencesof strictliabilityor, at any rate,primafacie strict
all knownoffencesin Englishlaw intoprima
liability.However,transforming
of
crimes
strict
facie
by companies
liabilitysimplybecausetheyare committed
it could be countersmacks of overkilland unfairness.More significantly,
from
wouldbe perceivedas different
in that'corporatemanslaughter'
productive
of
whichcould againcontribute
to thecontinuedmarginalisation
'manslaughter,'
suchoffences.
forcommon
especiallyin cases wherecompaniesare prosecuted
Accordingly,
As
law offences,
suchas manslaughter,
theburdenofproofshouldnotbe reversed.
rea
direct
of
mens
should
not
once
it
proof
pose anyparticular
problems
explained,
is understood
thatthiscan be locatedinthecompany'spoliciesandorganisational
structures.
establishedin thesame
Convictingcompaniesof thesame offences,
is the best routeto emphasisingthe
way as thosecommitted
by individuals,
of thecrimeand expressing
seriousness
theappropriate
degreeof censure.

Conclusion
of theseproposalswouldmaketheconvictionof companiesfor
Implementation
It wouldcertainly
corporateviolenceas well as otheroffencesa realpossibility.
a conviction
facilitate
incases suchas HeraldofFree Enterprise.
In turn,itmight
inducea changeofpolicybythepoliceand theHSE incases ofdeathand serious
injuryat work. If there were a realisticprospectof a conviction,fuller
investigations
mightseem worthwhile.
Kickinga fewmorecorporatebodiesand
a
few
more
souls
of a few
thedevelopment
corporate
damning
mightstimulate
more consciencesin those companiesthathave the lives and safetyof their
workersin theirhands,and who operatein spheresthatpose seriousrisksto the
publicand theenvironment.

103 Ashworth,op cit n 89, at p 161.

572

C The Modern Law Review Limited 1996