News

More than 300,000 workers are employed in the printing industry and each year approximately 1,200 of them suffer accidents at work. More than 200 of the reported accidents will be classified as major injuries, which include fractures and amputations.

Despite these figures, print is relatively safe when compared with other industries. In addition, the reported figures have actually seen an improvement over the past few years but senior managers cannot afford to be complacent as there will inevitably be work-related deaths each year.

The campaign to raise awareness of health and safety issues in the workplace spans over 150 years and has culminated this year in the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. Directors of companies have always been exposed to the risk of prosecution for manslaughter where there has been a personal responsibility and a reckless regard for the health and safety of employees. However, until now a company could not be prosecuted.

The act says that an organisation is guilty of the new offence of corporate manslaughter if the way in which its activities are managed or organised causes a person’s death, and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased. The management of a company’s activities will be scrutinised when it comes to proving guilt. It will be asked whether the business takes appropriate and reasonable steps to ensure that the activities associated with its business are managed so as not to create a risk to the health and safety of its employees or members of the public.

Responsible employers
The offence of corporate manslaughter will be tried in a Crown Court before a jury. It is the jury that will decide whether there was a gross breach of duty to the deceased. The factors that will be taken into account indicate clearly the sort of behaviour that responsible employers will already seek to avoid. These include whether the company failed to comply with health and safety legislation and, if so, how serious the failure was and how much of a risk of death it posed.

The jury may also consider the extent to which the evidence shows that there were attitudes, policies, systems or accepted practices that were likely to have encouraged a failure to comply with health and safety legislation. The jury is not constrained to consider only the factors referred to in the act but can take note and refer to any other matters that it considers relevant.

The penalties for being found guilty of an offence can include a fine of up to 10% of the company’s turnover. However, the reputation damage to an organisation can be potentially more harmful than the fine. The court has the power to make a publicity order that broadcasts to the world, including the company’s suppliers and customers, that it has been found guilty of corporate manslaughter.

The act is not likely to lead to large numbers of prosecutions, despite the fact that more than 200 people are killed every year at work, excluding road related deaths. However, its significance in raising the status of health and safety management to board level and as a measure of corporate governance cannot be overestimated.

The legislation will act as a stimulus for companies to review and overhaul their health and safety management strategies and to ensure that directors at board level take responsibility for the implementation and compliance of all health and safety legislation. Already, Freeth Cartwright has been instructed by a number of clients to review health and safety arrangements and to advise on the particular issues within those businesses for corporate governance that is now required.

Philippa Dempster is a partner and head of commercial services at law firm Freeth Cartwright.