Corporate Manslaughter: Enforcement Trends and Penalties, Risk Factors and What Organisations Should Do

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (“CMCHA 2007”) will, next year, be approaching its 20^th anniversary. CMCHA 2007, and in particular the threat of committing the offence of corporate manslaughter under section 1 (which came into force the following year), has had a transformative effect on how businesses operate. Whilst prosecutions and convictions remain relatively rare, they are not obsolete.

In this article we look back at enforcement trends and recent legislative changes that impact the scope of potential corporate liability where a death occurs.

The law

The scope for corporate criminal liability for a death arises out of s.1 of the CMCHA 2007. This states that an organisation only commits an offence if:

1. The organisation owed a relevant duty of care to the deceased;
2. There was a gross breach of that duty;
3. The way in which activities were managed or organised by senior management was a substantial element in the breach.
4. That breach caused or contributed to the death.

The evidential thresholds the prosecution must reach, therefore, are high. It includes not only proving that the way in which senior management managed or organised activities was a substantial element of the gross breach of duty of care owed to the deceased, but also that the breach caused or contributed to the death. These are high hurdles which focus on systemic management failures.

Enforcement trends and penalties

Given the evidential challenges, it is unsurprising that the number of prosecutions brought against organisations under s.1 of the CMCHA 2007 since its inception remains relatively low. It is even less surprising that conviction rates are even small in number.

However, as recent prosecutions have shown, s.1 CMCHA 2007 does still have some bite. In the past year alone, Fairytales Day Nursery was convicted of a s.1 CMCHA 2007 offence (following a guilty plea) after the tragic 2022 death of a 14-month old in their care. UK Athletics also pleaded guilty to corporate manslaughter after the 2017 fatal accident involving Paralympian Abdullah Hayayei.

It therefore remains important for those in control to consider the way in which activities are organised so that they can best mitigate against a possible corporate manslaughter charge should a tragic incident occur. A failure to do so can not only result in a publicised conviction, but a very large penalty. As set out in the sentencing guidelines, expected fines range from between £300,000 to £7.5m. If you are considered by the Court however to be a “very large organisation”, the guidelines state that fines outside of the existing guidelines should be considered.

Some other recent cases illustrate the scale of financial exposure:

• Cotswold Rainwater Services Ltd – Cotswold was sentenced in 2026 to a fine of £450,000 having pleaded guilty earlier in proceedings to an offence of corporate manslaughter. This followed the 2024 “entirely preventable” death of a guttering engineer as a result of electrocution.
• Ward Recycling Ltd – In 2024, Ward Recycling was fined £1.75 million for an offence of corporate manslaughter, plus £400,000 for health and safety breaches, following the fatal striking of an agency worker by a loading shovel.
• Stonehurst Estates Ltd – Stonehurst Estates pleaded guilty to an offence of corporate manslaughter, and in 2024 was fined £450,000, after a labourer died when a building collapsed during renovation work undertaken without a demolition plan or risk assessment.
• FDS Waste Services Ltd – In 2023, FDS Waste Services was fined £640,000 after being convicted of an offence of corporate manslaughter. This followed an employee being fatally injured after he was struck by a reversing wheeled loader; the company’s director received a suspended prison sentence.
• Greenfeeds Ltd – Greenfeeds were sentenced to a fine of £2m in 2022 after being found guilty of corporate manslaughter. This followed the death of two staff members, who drowned in a tanker of pig feed and a finding by the Judge that the company had repeatedly been warned of dangers, which they “simply ignored”.

Beyond corporate liability, organisations and businesses must be alive to the scope for senior individuals to be prosecuted under related Health and Safety legislation for work-related deaths. This includes directors. For example, in relation to the cases mentioned above:

• Fairytales Day Nursery: Alongside its CMCHA 2007 conviction, the nursery also pleaded guilty to failing to comply with its duty under s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (“HSWA 1974”); one of the nursery’s practitioners was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter and sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment;
• FDS Waste Services: Following a four week trial at Winchester Crown Court, the company’s Director was convicted of an offence under s.37 HSWA 1975 and received a suspended sentence of six months’ imprisonment. Similarly, the Director and Site Foreman of Stonehurst Estates Ltd pleaded guilty to contravening offences under HSWA 1974 and were sentenced to a suspended prison sentence and a community order, respectively.
• Greenfeeds Ltd: Alongside the company’s conviction for corporate manslaughter, in 2022 a senior manager of the business was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment after being convicted of two counts of gross negligence manslaughter, whilst her husband, a director of the company, sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.

New scope for liability

The introduction of section 250 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 (“CPA 2026”) in June 2026 provides for a new, alternative route for enforcement authorities to hold companies criminally liable for health and safety failings.

Section 250 CPA 2026 provides that where a “senior manager” commits an offence, whilst acting in within the actual, or apparent, scope of authority, the organisation will also commit an offence. A “senior manager” is defined (at s.250(3)) CPA 2026 as someone who plays a significant role in either: a) the decision-making process of managing or organising the whole or substantial part of the organisation’s activities; or b) the managing or organising of the whole or substantial part of the organisation’s activities. The scope for who qualifies as a “senior manager” can be broad. Section 250 also expands liability beyond the common law “directing mind and will” test – i.e. a person with whom the company has given full discretion to act independently of the Board with regard to a relevant function (per SFO v Barclays Plc [2018] EWHC 3055 (QB)). There is no “reasonable procedures” defence available for companies.

This means that a company could now be found corporately criminally liable for gross negligence manslaughter pursuant to s.250 CPA 2026 if one of its “senior managers” was equally liable. Of course, a prosecution would still need to meet the “senior manager” test and prove gross negligence against that individual, but it provides for an alternative route to corporate criminal liability where a charge of corporate manslaughter might be difficult to prove.

Mitigation Measures

With all this in mind, it is important for organisations and businesses to assess their risks and ensure mitigation and preventative measures are incorporated into day-to-day practices. This applies not only to high-risk industries, such as construction, waste management and industrial operations, but all businesses. The key issue is for each business/organisation to assess their own risks and ensure they have sufficient measures in place to manage those risks. How an organisation may achieve this could include:

• Ensuring there are documented risk assessments and safe systems of work in place, actively applied and continually reviewed;
• Embedding supervision and training on all health and safety aspects and monitoring compliance;
• Conducting robust and adequate investigations into warnings or near-misses;
• Recognising and removing any aspects that may lead to a culture of complacency; and
• Making sure there is board-level accountability for health and safety governance.

Implementing these measures will hopefully help prevent an incident occurring in the first place. However, it is impossible to avoid all accidents and should the worst happen, these actions will best protect an organisation/business facing any health and safety incident and allegation – corporate manslaughter or otherwise. It will demonstrate to any enforcement body that an organisation did all it reasonably practicable could to ensure risks were properly and actively assessed and necessary and appropriate mitigation measures adopted.

For advice on corporate manslaughter risk, health and safety governance, or managing the aftermath of a serious incident, please contact our team.