Blog
Rayner my parade! The importance of specialist advice.
Jemma Brimblecombe
The recent case of R v Wood Limited Treatment highlights the problems faced by prosecution authorities in proving causation for the purposes of establishing criminal liability for corporate manslaughter.
This case concerned the tragic events at Bosley Mill (‘the Mill’) where on 17 July 2015 a large explosion resulted in the deaths of four workers. The Mill produced wood dust, which is defined as a “dangerous substance” under Regulation 2(c) of the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 and known to be explosive in certain conditions.
Following this incident, the company, Wood Treatment Limited (‘WTL’), and its Director, George Boden, were prosecuted for corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter respectively, as well as for further offences under health and safety legislation.
At the trial, it was common ground that the explosion was caused by the ignition of wood dust in the air and that there was evidence from which a jury could conclude that the risk of explosion was much higher than it should have been because of the negligence of WTL and Mr Boden.
At the end of the prosecution case, the trial judge, Mrs Justice May, ruled in favour of the Defendant’s submission of no case to answer in respect of the manslaughter offences (‘the terminating ruling’). The prosecution appealed this ruling under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (‘CJA’), which allows the prosecution to appeal a ruling in relation to a trial on indictment at an “applicable time”, meaning any time before the judge starts their summing-up to the jury. In order to initiate the appeal, the prosecution must inform the court that it intends to appeal and request an adjournment (s.58(4) CJA). At the time of informing the court of its intention to appeal, the prosecution must also enter into an ‘acquittal agreement’ providing that it agrees the defendant(s) should be acquitted if leave to appeal is not obtained, or if the appeal is abandoned before it is determined (s.58(8)-(9) CJA).
In this case, leave to appeal was granted and the trial was adjourned whilst the appeal was determined by the Court of Appeal. The question on appeal was whether the trial judge was right to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the negligent acts or omissions alleged against WTL and Mr Boden played a substantial part in causing the explosion.
The offence of corporate manslaughter requires an organisation to manage or organise its activities in such a way that causes a person’s death and amounts to a gross breach of a duty of care owed to the deceased. Furthermore, an organisation is guilty of corporate manslaughter only if the way in which its activities are managed or organised by its senior management is a substantial element of that breach.
This case presented evidential challenges in terms of proving the cause of the explosion, as since the explosion had largely destroyed the Mill there was little psychical evidence available. At trial, a joint expert statement posited four possible causative scenarios for the explosion. Scenarios 1, 2 and 4 relied on the accumulation of wood dust which had previously settled within the Mill and then ignited. During the trial there had been evidence that the Mill was dusty, with wood dust settled across surfaces which had not been adequately cleaned, and that leaks from the poorly designed and maintained machinery had also produced dust. The prosecution case was that negligent failures of management had resulted in the accumulation of wood dust in dangerous quantities which had then caused the explosion.
However, scenario 3 did not rely on the accumulation of dust and instead suggested the explosion may have been caused following a large release of wood dust from a faulty piece of equipment. The Court of Appeal held that, given scenario 3 could not be ruled out as a potential cause of the explosion, prosecution evidence about accumulations of dust could not prove the necessary causal link between the fault and the explosion. In order to make such a causal link, it would be necessary to also examine scenario 3 and adduce evidence of the extent to which it involved the negligence of WTL and Mr Boden, but that had not been done by the prosecution.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s ruling of no case to answer on the basis that it was impossible for the jury to exclude all realistic possibilities for the explosion consistent with the innocence of the defendants. An order was made under s.61(3) CJA that the defendants be acquitted of the manslaughter offences which had been subject to the appeal.
After being acquitted of the manslaughter charges, Boden pleaded guilty to being a director of a company which committed an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (‘HSWA’) for which he was fined £12,000 and was barred from holding the position of company director for four years. The company, which had previously pleaded guilty to an offence of failing to ensure the health and safety of employees, was fined £75,000. Two further managers of WTL, indicted for health and safety offences, were acquitted. The court heard that prosecution costs in the case amounted to £540,000.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the difficulty in proving the causation element of corporate and gross negligence manslaughter offences. Not only must prosecutors adduce evidence in support of causes that are consistent with a manslaughter charge, but they must also address other possible causes so as to exclude them. To fail to do so means that a jury has no way to satisfy itself that such innocent explanations can be excluded from consideration making an acquittal the only possible outcome.
For more information on any issues raised in this blog post, please contact a member of our Criminal Litigation team.
Jonathan Grimes is a criminal lawyer specialising in serious and complex criminal cases. He represents individuals and organisations in all areas of financial services and business crime as well as health and safety and related areas. He also continues to advise in a wide variety of other criminal law matters with a particular emphasis on cases with an international aspect, including war crimes, extradition and INTERPOL. He provides advice during investigations, attending hundreds of interviews of many different kinds in the course of his career, and is experienced in defending prosecutions brought by a range of law enforcement agencies.
Charlie Roe is a trainee solicitor. He is currently in his fourth seat in the Criminal Litigation team, after having spent his first seat in the Regulatory team, his second seat in the Employment team and his third seat in the Public Law team.
This health, safety law and corporate manslaughter update provides a summary of news stories in the period April 2024 – September 2024.
This quarterly update provides a summary of a selection of news stories relating to health and safety law investigations and prosecutions, as well as key corporate manslaughter cases, in the period January 2024 – March 2024.
This quarterly update provides a summary of a selection of news stories relating to health and safety law investigations and prosecutions in the period October 2023 – December 2023.
This quarterly update provides a summary of a selection of news stories relating to health and safety investigations and prosecutions, as well as key corporate manslaughter cases, from the period July – September 2023.
This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of news stories in the period July 2023 – September 2023.
On 7 September 2023 it was announced that charges were authorised by the CPS against North East London NHS Foundation Trust (NELFT), following an investigation by the Metropolitan Police into the death of 22-year-old patient Alice Figueiredo on 7 July 2015 at Goodmayes Hospital in Redbridge, East London.
This quarterly health, safety law and corporate manslaughter update provides a summary of a selection of news stories relating to health and safety investigations and prosecutions, as well as key corporate manslaughter cases, published in the period April 2023 – June 2023.
On 22 February 2023, FDS Waste Services (“FDS”) and company director, Philip Pidgley, were sentenced, respectively, to a £640,000 fine and six months suspended prison sentence, following their convictions for corporate manslaughter and offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974 (HSWA).
This quarterly health & safety and corporate manslaughter law update provides a summary of news stories in the period July 2022 – December 2022
This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of news stories in the period July 2022 – December 2022.
The Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 come into force today, introducing new duties under the Fire Safety Order for responsible persons.
This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of a cross-section of news stories in the period April 2022 - June 2022.
This quarterly update summarises a selection of news stories relating to health and safety investigations and prosecutions published in the period April – June 2022 as well as some of the key corporate manslaughter cases which have been brought in recent months.
This quarterly update provides a summary of a selection number of news stories relating to health and safety investigations and prosecutions, published in the period January - March 2022.
This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of news stories in the period January 2022 – March 2022
This blogs considers the recent corporate manslaughter conviction of Deco-Pak and two other recent corporate manslaughter cases, Bosley Mill and Aster Healthcare and what they tell us about the current approach to this offence. In January 2022 a garden supplies firm, Deco-Pak was found guilty of corporate manslaughter following a fatal accident at the Deco-Pak premises in Hipperholme, West Yorkshire on 14 April 2017.
On 5 January 2022, Bupa pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Bupa were ordered to pay a fine of £937,500 and prosecution costs of £104,000. This is the highest ever fine imposed for fire safety breaches under the Fire Safety Order in the UK.
This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of news stories published in the period October – December 2021.
The built environment presents health and safety risks like no other sector. Whether it be the risk of falls from height, hazardous substances, trapped by items collapsing or overturning, fire or moving vehicles there are a wide range of hazards that need to be managed from the outset. Directors can be held personally liable when health and safety duties are breached. In this blog we explore the scope of personal liability for directors in the built environment.
Last week Assistant Commissioner Fire Safety, Paul Jennings of the London Fire Brigade stated that developers are ‘gaming the system’, looking to reach only the minimum standards required for building safety and ‘bending the rules’. AC Jennings explained that we are not seeing the cultural change within the built environment that we would expect, following the tragic events of the Grenfell Tower fire and the subsequent Hackitt review.
We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.
Jemma Brimblecombe
Charles Richardson
Oliver Oldman
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print