What is Corporate Manslaughter?
It was once difficult to convict large organisations of manslaughter because to do so meant that prosecutors had to identify senior individuals within that organisation whose conduct could be attributed to the company. This was rectified by the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which introduced corporate manslaughter as an indictable-only offence that exists to hold entire organisations criminally responsible for a person’s death.
Section 1 of the Act establishes the key elements required to prove corporate manslaughter. The prosecution must demonstrate that:
the way in which the organisation’s activities were managed or organised caused a person’s death;
this amounted to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased; and
the way in which senior management managed or organised the organisation’s activities was a substantial element of that breach.
Such cases are tried in the Crown Court in the ordinary way. If convicted, organisations face unlimited fines but imprisonment cannot be imposed since the defendant is an organisation.
Recent Developments and Renewed Public Attention
2026 has seen a renewed public attention in high-profile corporate manslaughter cases across the media, the majority relating to investigations and charging decisions.
In October, the Daily Mail reported that Burdon Grange Care Home Limited and South West Lakes Trust have both been charged with two counts of corporate manslaughter after wheelchair users Alison Tilsley and Alex Wood drowned in Roadford Lake Reservoir.
In September, the BBC reported that the Metropolitan Police confirmed that they have submitted all files relating to the Grenfell Tower Fires onto the CPS for charging decisions in respect of 20 companies, including for corporate manslaughter.
In July, the Guardian reported that Nottingham Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust is being investigated by Northumbria Police for corporate manslaughter in their treatment of Valdo Calocane leading up to his murders of university students Grace O'Malley Kumar and Barnaby Webber, and caretaker Ian Coates.
What Do These Stories Tell Us?
The recent prominence in the media of corporate manslaughter investigations raises questions about the effectiveness of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The existence of multiple high-profile investigations does not necessarily translate into successful prosecutions or convictions. In fact, parliamentary records confirm that between 2022 and 2026, there was only a maximum of 3 corporate manslaughter convictions per year in England and Wales. This disparity between the level of media attention and the number of convictions raises questions about whether the Act's demanding legal requirements allow it to deliver effective corporate accountability.
The threshold for securing a corporate manslaughter conviction is a high one. Establishing that a breach is 'gross' under section 1 is difficult. Section 8 outlines some considerations of the jury in determining this, one being how much risk of death the failure posed. While expert evidence can assist with some issues, all considerations are seemingly subjective. This causes difficulty when one considers that the offence must be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
This is not to say that the current legislation is unfit for purpose, but it certainly raises the question of whether the Act strikes the appropriate balance between maintaining a high threshold for criminal liability and ensuring that organisations can be held accountable when gross management failures cause death.