This essay will outline the elements necessary to establish that Juckshift Ltd is liable for corporate manslaughter. Firstly, I will give an overall idea on how corporations can be liable for manslaughter, taking into account how was the law before the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and how it evolved until now. Secondly, I will pass through the entry requirement needed for a corporation to be charged with this offence basing my arguments on this own scenario. Thirdly, I will outline some of the criticism about the efficiency of this new Act and compare it with different legal systems and I will finally explain why I think this case should be prosecuted. A Company is considered a legal entity, because it can sue and be sued. Thus, normally one can consider the fact that corporations being similar to all other legal entities have no reason to be excluded from committing any criminal offence. However, there are some exceptions that differentiates companies as being different type of legal entities: because there is no single individual who represents it, it is impossible for a company to be charged …show more content…
The offence that was more similar to this one, was the conviction of an individual who could be represented as the directing mind of a corporation for gross negligence manslaughter. This idea of a company only being liable where individuals who embody the company executed criminal acts is present in Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass and its judgement illustrates one of the most important doctrines of corporation liability: the identification test. In this case the House of Lord confirms that the location of the liability is at the top of the company and the person who embodies it has to be sufficiently important within the company structure for its act to be identified with the company