1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192 
ANALYSIS
6th November 2003, Page 20
6th November 2003
Page 20
Page 20, 6th November 2003
— ANALYSIS
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Keywords :
Prevention, Corporate Crime, Corporate Manslaughter, English Criminal Law, Manslaughter, United Kingdom Company Law, Occupational Safety And Health, Safety, Disaster / Accident, Law / Crime
Who's responsible?
Clairns that your client required you to work extra hours or run illegally would be no defence if someone were killed, warns Simon Thorne, partner at Reading-based solicitor firm Clarks. "Every recovery operator has a duty of care, whether they are work ng for the police or a motoring organisation, to adhere to health and safety regulations. Operators must stand by the law, regardless of Mat their client says. It is vital that they renew their safety polices and ensure that their employees have adequate training. While some companies may say this costs too much, it would be far cheaper to put preventive measures in place than face corporate manslaughter charges."