Corporate Manslaughter in English Law: A Growing Focus on Organisational Accountability

News broke yesterday that three senior figures at the Countess of Chester Hospital have been arrested in connection with ongoing investigations into corporate manslaughter. The investigation follows the high-profile case of Lucy Letby, the nurse convicted in 2023 of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill several others.

This news brings the legal framework surrounding this serious offence back into the spotlight.

While the Letby case remains highly specific and emotive, these recent arrests suggest an important shift: increased willingness by the authorities to pursue senior leaders and institutions for failings in management — even where individuals were not directly responsible for the physical acts leading to loss of life.

In this article we take a closer look at how corporate manslaughter legislation in England works, what it requires of organisations, and how leaders can ensure they meet their obligations.
‍

The Legal Framework: Corporate Manslaughter and the 2007Act

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 came into force in 2008, aiming to make it easier to hold organisations accountable for deaths caused by serious management failings.

Before the Act, prosecutors struggled to convict corporations under existing manslaughter laws, because a "directing mind"— usually a single senior individual — had to be identified and proven grossly negligent. This standard was near-impossible for large, complex organisations like the NHS, construction firms, or local authorities.

The 2007 Act removed that obstacle by shifting focus from individual blame to systemic failings at the organisational level.

To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove:

1.  A duty of care existed between the organisation and the deceased.
2.  The organisation breached that duty through its activities or omissions.
3.  The breach constituted a gross failure.
4.  That gross breach was a substantial cause of the death.
5.  The failing was due to how the organisation’s senior management managed or organised its activities.

The offence applies to companies, partnerships, government bodies, and other legal entities. Convictions can result in unlimited fines, remedial orders, and publicity orders that damage reputation.

Importantly, individual directors or managers cannot be convicted under this Act, but may still face separate charges — such as gross negligence manslaughter or health and safety offences —if their actions are personally culpable.
‍

Notable Cases and Lessons Learned

Although convictions under the Act have been relatively rare, several high-profile cases have helped shape its application:

1. Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings (2011)

The first company convicted under the Act, after a young geologist was killed when a trench collapsed. The court found that the firm had allowed dangerous practices to continue and failed to provide adequate supervision or risk assessment. The company was fined £385,000.

2. Pyranha Mouldings Ltd (2016)

A factory worker was killed when trapped in an industrial oven. The company had a long-standing practice of workers entering ovens without effective lockout procedures. The court ruled that this was a gross breach of duty and fined the company £700,000.

3. Lion Steel Equipment Ltd (2012)

A worker fell through a roof panel. Senior management had failed to implement basic safety measures or assess roof hazards. The company pleaded guilty and was fined £480,000.

What these cases highlight is that consistent failure to assess and mitigate risk, a lack of safety culture, and poor communication from senior management can all lead to criminal liability — even without intent to harm.
‍

The Evolving Landscape: Growing Willingness to Prosecute

In recent years, there has been a growing expectation that companies should be able to evidence robust governance of their health and safety obligations. Prosecutors are increasingly examining how leadership structures, reporting lines, and decision-making processes contribute to harmful outcomes.

The use of corporate manslaughter charges —once seen as a legal last resort — is becoming a more prominent feature of public safety enforcement, especially where tragic incidents are linked to systemic organisational failure.

Healthcare settings, construction sites, logistics operators, and public services are all under scrutiny. In an era where operational complexity is high, this places new pressure on organisations to demonstrate not only compliance, but also effective oversight.
‍

Preventing Exposure Through Governance and Culture

Avoiding corporate manslaughter liability starts with building a proactive safety culture — one that is backed by systems capable of identifying, escalating, and addressing risks in real-time.

This includes:

• Clear accountability structures for safety at every level. Robust risk assessment and monitoring processes.

• Transparent incident reporting that encourages early warnings, not silence.

• Consistent documentation and audit trails, which become crucial if an investigation occurs.

• Board-level engagement with safety performance—not just in theory, but through active dashboards and review.

Digital platforms can support this work by making it easier to manage and review compliance activity, incident trends, training records, and asset safety across a distributed workforce.

This allows organisations to flag risks earlier through real time reporting, and to track follow up actions and evidence completion.  It also demonstrates that senior leaders were engaged and informed.

In an investigation, this kind of digital infrastructure can make the difference between a prosecution and a clear demonstration of due diligence. However, the technology must support a culture that values safety leadership, not replace it.
‍

Conclusion: Leadership, Responsibility and the Law

Corporate manslaughter legislation represents a significant shift in how English law views organisational responsibility. No longer can companies claim ignorance or point to rogue individuals when deaths occur due to failures in management and oversight.

As recent developments show, regulators and the public expect senior leaders to be accountable — not just legally, but morally — for the systems they oversee. The law does not expect perfection, but it does demand action. Organisations must show that they take their duty of care seriously, that risks are identified and addressed, and that safety is led from the top.

As the corporate landscape continues to evolve, so too must our understanding of governance. Technology can assist, but only leadership can embed a culture where preventable harm becomes truly unacceptable.