which he was subjecting the children who visited the centre. The case would appear to be a clear example of the principle of identification. The procedures followed after the Ladbroke Grove rail crash in 1999 have given rise to another controversy. In that instance, a public inquiry was rapidly set up, under the chairmanship of Lord Cullen, to take evidence to identify the causes of the crash. Shortly after this, it was suggested that the collection of evidence for this purpose, particularly the taking of evidence from witnesses, would be likely to preclude the possibility of bringing any criminal proceedings. PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR COMMITTING MANSLAUGHTER : It barely needs mentioning that the statutory offence of motor manslaughter under s 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 will lie against those driving vehicles in the course of their employment. The focus here is upon the use of the common law crime in the context of conduct at work. There are very few examples of

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-136

Chapter

which he was subjecting the children who visited the centre. The case would appear to be a clear example of the principle of identification. The procedures followed after the Ladbroke Grove rail crash in 1999 have given rise to another controversy. In that instance, a public inquiry was rapidly set up, under the chairmanship of Lord Cullen, to take evidence to identify the causes of the crash. Shortly after this, it was suggested that the collection of evidence for this purpose, particularly the taking of evidence from witnesses, would be likely to preclude the possibility of bringing any criminal proceedings. PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR COMMITTING MANSLAUGHTER

Chapter

which he was subjecting the children who visited the centre. The case would appear to be a clear example of the principle of identification. The procedures followed after the Ladbroke Grove rail crash in 1999 have given rise to another controversy. In that instance, a public inquiry was rapidly set up, under the chairmanship of Lord Cullen, to take evidence to identify the causes of the crash. Shortly after this, it was suggested that the collection of evidence for this purpose, particularly the taking of evidence from witnesses, would be likely to preclude the possibility of bringing any criminal proceedings. PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR COMMITTING MANSLAUGHTER

ABSTRACT

It barely needs mentioning that the statutory offence of motor manslaughter under s 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 will lie against those driving vehicles in the course of their employment. The focus here is upon the use of the common law crime in the context of conduct at work. There are very few examples of this and most of these examples are not well reported. The following report is of an appeal, under a now obsolete procedure before Taunton Assizes:

REX v PITTWOOD (1902) 19 TLR 37 It appeared that the prisoner occupied a hut as a gatekeeper on the Somerset and Dorset Railway near Glastonbury. His duties were to keep the gate shut whenever a train was passing along the line, which was a single line, and not many trains used to pass during the day ... On 18 July, at about 2.45 in the afternoon, White was in a hay cart crossing the line with several others, when a train came up and hit the cart, White being struck and killed. Another man was also seriously injured, while the three remaining men by jumping out of the cart saved their lives. A number of witnesses were called to show that it was really only an accommodation road and not a public road. It was shown that the train was going at a very fair rate and it was impossible to stop it, as the cart was only seen by the driver a few yards away from his train. The prisoner gave evidence before the coroner and his disposition was put in, and in it he stated that he had put the gate open about 10 minutes before to let a cart pass, and had propped it open, had forgotten to shut it again, and had gone to have some luncheon. For the defence, it was suggested that there was only mere inattention on the part of the prisoner and no criminal negligence.