sections is only five years’ imprisonment, whereas the maximum penalty for manslaughter is a life sentence. If manslaughter is to remain one of the most serious criminal offences, the solution may not necessarily be to apply the criteria of the statutory offence of motor manslaughter to the law of manslaughter generally. Whatever the ultimate solution, for the time being, the problems of determining the sort of conduct which is criminal and the state of mind of the wrongdoer when so acting remain at the core of the law of reckless or gross negligence manslaughter. THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE LIABILITY : Problem of establishing corporate liability The fact that gross negligence manslaughter is a mens rea offence means that it is no simple matter to fix liability to corporations for this offence. Formerly, the common law did not allow that corporations were capable of committing any crime since, lacking a human body, they have no power to

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-134

Chapter

sections is only five years’ imprisonment, whereas the maximum penalty for manslaughter is a life sentence. If manslaughter is to remain one of the most serious criminal offences, the solution may not necessarily be to apply the criteria of the statutory offence of motor manslaughter to the law of manslaughter generally. Whatever the ultimate solution, for the time being, the problems of determining the sort of conduct which is criminal and the state of mind of the wrongdoer when so acting remain at the core of the law of reckless or gross negligence manslaughter. THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE LIABILITY

Chapter

sections is only five years’ imprisonment, whereas the maximum penalty for manslaughter is a life sentence. If manslaughter is to remain one of the most serious criminal offences, the solution may not necessarily be to apply the criteria of the statutory offence of motor manslaughter to the law of manslaughter generally. Whatever the ultimate solution, for the time being, the problems of determining the sort of conduct which is criminal and the state of mind of the wrongdoer when so acting remain at the core of the law of reckless or gross negligence manslaughter. THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE LIABILITY

ABSTRACT

The next major development was the principle of ‘identification’, which was first introduced in the 1940s,7 explained by Lord Denning in HL Bolton (Engineering) Co Ltd v TJ Graham & Sons Ltd (1957)8 and fully developed in Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass (see below). The doctrine is that the corporation can be identified with and made liable for the unlawful behaviour of senior managers who are its controlling officers. Lord Denning put it thus:

A company may in many ways be likened to a human body. It has a brain and nerve centre which controls what it does. It also has hands which hold the tools and act in accordance with directions from the centre. Some of the people in the company are mere servants and agents who are nothing more than the hands to do the work and cannot be said to represent the mind and will. Others are directors and managers who represent the directing mind and will

of the company, and control what it does. The state of mind of these managers is the state of mind of the company and is treated by the law as such.9