Corporate Criminal Liability In Uk Case Law
🔍 What Is Corporate Criminal Liability?
Corporations (companies, not individuals) can be held criminally liable for offences such as:
Manslaughter
Fraud
Bribery
Environmental offences
Regulatory breaches
This is done through two main routes:
Identification Doctrine
Statutory Liability / Failure to Prevent Offences
1. Identification Doctrine
The company is liable if the person committing the crime is the “directing mind and will” of the company (i.e., senior management).
2. Statutory (Strict) Liability
Some modern statutes (e.g., Bribery Act 2010, Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007) impose liability without requiring intent, especially if the company failed to prevent an offence.
⚖️ Key Case Law: Corporate Criminal Liability
1. Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v. Nattrass (1972)
(Identification Doctrine)
Facts:
Tesco blamed a store manager for misleading advertising. Argued it was the manager’s fault, not the company’s.
Held:
The manager was not the “directing mind and will” of Tesco. Therefore, Tesco wasn't liable.
Principle:
A company is only liable for criminal acts of individuals who represent its controlling mind (usually board-level).
✅ Still used today but seen as too narrow for large corporations.
2. R v. P & O European Ferries (1991)
(Corporate Manslaughter Attempt)
Facts:
P&O was prosecuted after the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, killing 193 people.
Held:
Prosecution failed because no single senior officer could be identified as grossly negligent.
Principle:
Identification doctrine made it almost impossible to convict large companies of serious crimes like manslaughter.
❌ Led to demand for reform — seen as protecting large firms unfairly.
3. R v. ICR Haulage Ltd (1944)
(First UK conviction of a company for a criminal offence)
Facts:
A transport company was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud.
Held:
Company convicted — even though corporations can’t be imprisoned, they can still be fined or sanctioned.
Principle:
Companies can be criminally liable just like individuals, depending on the nature of the offence.
4. Attorney General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1999)
(Corporate Manslaughter and System Failures)
Facts:
Concerned a train crash and corporate liability.
Held:
Reaffirmed that under the old law, a human individual must first be guilty before the company could be guilty.
Principle:
Systemic failures alone weren’t enough — one identifiable person must be at fault.
🧱 Exposed the gap in the law — paved the way for Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007.
5. R v. Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd (2011)
(First conviction under Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007)
Facts:
A young worker was crushed to death during unsafe excavation work. Small company prosecuted.
Held:
Company convicted under the 2007 Act. Fined £385,000.
Principle:
New law allowed prosecution based on management failure causing a death — without needing to find one guilty individual.
✅ Landmark use of the Corporate Manslaughter Act.
6. Serious Fraud Office v. Barclays PLC (2018)
(Limits of Corporate Prosecution)
Facts:
Barclays was charged with fraud over capital raising during the 2008 financial crisis.
Held:
Court ruled charges must be carefully based on proof of directing mind involvement — SFO’s case collapsed.
Principle:
Identification doctrine still limits liability for large, complex firms with dispersed decision-making.
7. R v. Skansen Interiors Ltd (2018)
(Bribery Act – Failure to Prevent)
Facts:
Small company prosecuted for failing to prevent bribery. No conviction of individual required.
Held:
Company convicted — the failure to have adequate procedures was enough.
Principle:
Bribery Act 2010 introduced corporate liability for “failure to prevent,” even without identifying an individual.
✅ Modern approach—easier to convict companies.
📝 Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Outcome | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tesco v. Nattrass (1972) | Identification doctrine | Not liable | Must prove fault of “directing mind” |
| P&O Ferries (1991) | Manslaughter | Prosecution failed | Difficult to convict big firms |
| ICR Haulage (1944) | Fraud | Convicted | Companies can face criminal charges |
| AG Ref (No. 2 of 1999) | Systemic fault | Not liable | Needed to identify one guilty person |
| Cotswold Geo. (2011) | Corporate manslaughter | Convicted | New law focuses on management failure |
| Barclays (2018) | Fraud | Case collapsed | ID doctrine limits liability |
| Skansen (2018) | Bribery | Convicted | Failure to prevent = liability |
🔍 Key Reforms
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007:
Shifted from individual blame to organisational management failure.
Bribery Act 2010 (s.7):
Introduced strict liability for failure to prevent bribery.
Proposed Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill:
Expanding “failure to prevent” offences (e.g., fraud).
RELATED Blog
0 comments