The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (“CMCHA 2007”) will, next year, be approaching its 20th anniversary. The Act, and in particular the threat of committing the offence of corporate manslaughter (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.
The law
To secure a conviction under the 2007 Act, prosecutors must establish three elements:
- The organisation owed a relevant duty of care to the deceased.
- There was a gross breach of that duty.
- The way in which activities were managed or organised by senior management was a substantial element in the breach.
- That breach caused or contributed to the death.
Importantly, the Act focuses on systemic management failures rather than the conduct of any single individual. The shortcomings of multiple managers, supervisors and employees can be aggregated to establish liability.
Enforcement trends and penalties
In the three-year period – a conviction rate that signals prosecuting authorities view corporate manslaughter as a viable and effective enforcement tool.[1]
Penalties reflect the seriousness with which courts treat these offences. Sentencing guidelines set starting points of between £300,000 and £7.5m and, since June 2025, when sentencing very large organisations, courts now should consider fines outside of the existing guidelines.
Recent cases illustrate the scale of exposure:
- Ward Recycling Ltd – fined £1.75 million for corporate manslaughter, plus £400,000 for health and safety breaches, following the fatal striking of an agency worker by a loading shovel.
- FDS Waste Services Ltd – fined £640,000 after an employee was struck by a reversing wheeled loader; the company’s director received a suspended prison sentence.
- Stonehurst Estates Ltd – fined £450,000 after a labourer died when a building collapsed during renovation work undertaken without a demolition plan or risk assessment.
Beyond corporate financial penalties, senior individuals have routinely been held liable under related Health and Safety legislation for work-related deaths. This includes directors. For example, whilst FDS Waste Services was convicted in 2022, as a corporate, for the death of one its workers in 2018, so too was the director. Following a four-week trial at Winchester Crown Court, the Director was convicted of an offence under s.37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (“HSWA 1974”) 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 sentenced to a suspended prison sentence and a community order respectively.
On 29 June 2026, a new section 250 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 (“CPA 2026”) came into force. Where a senior manager of a body corporate or partnership commits any criminal offence,including health and safety breaches or gross negligence manslaughter, while acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority, that offence can be attributed directly to the organisation.
In the context of the HSWA 1974 following a health and safety incident, the practical effect of this reform appears relatively limited. Organisations are routinely prosecuted as primary offenders in their own right under the HSWA 1974, without any need to establish the conduct of the particular individual. As such, the more familiar direction of travel for individual liability runs the other way. Section 250 reverses this dynamic, but does so in a context where organisations already face direct and well-established exposure.
From a corporate manslaughter perspective, it is worth noting that the CMCHA 2007 already places senior management conduct at the heart of the offence, an organisation’s liability turns, in part, on whether the way its activities were managed or organised by senior management was a substantial element in the gross breach causing death. In that sense, the flow of individual conduct informing organisational liability is not entirely new.
However, proving that an organisation’s senior management arrangements were a substantial element of a gross breach has historically been one of the most difficult hurdles in corporate manslaughter prosecutions, particularly in larger organisations. Section 250 may offer prosecutors an alternative route, rather than navigating that threshold, prosecutors may be more inclined to pursue an individual senior manager for gross negligence manslaughter and, if successful, attribute that offence directly to the organisation under section 250. This approach also circumvents the historical difficulties associated with prosecuting an organisation for gross negligence manslaughter at common law, where liability required identifying the “directing mind and will” of the company as the perpetrator.
The threshold remains high – gross negligence manslaughter must still be established against the individual senior manager. Nevertheless, where that case can be made out, section 250 provides a potentially significant prosecutorial route to organisational liability following a workplace fatality.
Act is wide-reaching
While construction, waste management and industrial operations have featured prominently in recent prosecutions, the Act applies broadly to private companies, public bodies and incorporated organisations across all sectors. Healthcare providers and service organisations are increasingly within scope.
The critical question is not which sector an organisation operates in, but whether that organisation has properly assessed and managed its risks.
Risk Factors
Organisations have been prosecuted where there was:
- No documented risk assessment or safe system of work for hazardous work activities;
- Failure to adequately implement various safety controls;
- Inadequate supervision and training, particularly where agency workers, migrant workers or subcontractors were involved;
- Inadequate investigation into warnings or near-misses;
- A culture of complacency;
- Absence of board-level accountability for health and safety governance.
What Organisations Should Do
While corporate manslaughter prosecutions remain relatively rare, the consequences of conviction – for an organisation’s workforce, finances, reputation and leadership – are severe and long lasting. The evolving legislative landscape, including the introduction of section 250 of the CPA, signals a continued push towards greater accountability for organisations and senior managers alike following workplace fatalities. Proactive and genuine engagement with health and safety obligations remains the most effective means of managing that risk.
For advice on corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter or health and safety matters – including risk mitigation, governance, or managing the aftermath of a serious incident – please contact our team.
A breakdown of each year is listed below:
- 2022-23: 6 prosecutions, 6 convictions (1 guilty plea and 5 convictions after trial).
- 2023-24: 4 prosecutions, 2 convictions (1 guilty plea and 1 conviction after trial), 2 unsuccessful (1 no evidence offered after trial began and 1 left to lie on file).
- 2024-25: 3 prosecutions, 2 convictions (both convictions after trial), 1 unsuccessful (no evidence offered after trial began).
[1] Written Question – House of Lords Business – UK Parliament – tabled on 21 July 2025 and answered on 4 August 2025.
