Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Murder Corporate Manslaughter

martin19671

I been asked to answer this question on two issues murder and if the company is guilty of corporate manslaughter.
Can murder be an indirect intention caused (actus reus) by negligence? ie the failure to maintain the safety caused the accident? The mens rea is not there as did not intend to cause death or harm?
How would you use the but for test?

Did the fact that period checks were carried out mean could not be negligent? No reported incidents ? HSE does not require anything to be written down if under 5 employees

Brynn Jones is the owner of Snowdonia Camping Holidays Ltd, a business which owns and operates a campsite on the hills of Snowdonia, North Wales. Mr Jones was a farmer who allowed tourists to camp on one of the fields on his farm. When his farming business failed in 2012 he expanded the camping business and now has 50 pitches for tents with toilet and shower facilities. Mr Jones lives on the site and manages the campsite on a day-to-day basis. There are no other regular employees, although during the summer season he employs one or two people on a casual, temporary basis to help out on the campsite.In spring 2014, Mr Jones decided to expand into the luxury camping market and bought two luxury tents from a specialist company, who erected the tents for him in a secluded field near to the woods at the edge of the farm. The company advised that the tents should be checked at least once a week to ensure that they remain properly erected. They also advised that the tents should be taken down and stored indoors over the winter months, due to the exposed hillside location and the possible effect of the poor weather on the tents. They suggested that the company should be employed to take down the tents and re-erect them again the following spring, to ensure the tents were pitched safely.Due to poor weather in summer 2014 the business did not do very well. Mr Jones decided to save money by leaving the luxury tents erected over the winter months, as this avoided paying the company to take the tents down and re-erect them.Business picked up in 2015 and both the campsite and the luxury tents were in demand. Mr Jones had been extremely busy working 20-hour days and, therefore, had not had time to check the luxury tents regularly. There were no records kept of any safety checks made, though he did recall looking at the tents periodically during this time. He had not received any complaints or noticed any problems. At the start of July Mr Jones employed two local teenagers, Mary and David, to help out around the campsite. They had not worked at a campsite before.Business increased as the school summer holidays started. At the end of July 2015 Mr Jones’s new girlfriend, who lived in London, complained that she hardly ever saw him as he was busy working. She threatened to end the relationship. In an effort to save the relationship Mr Jones agreed to go and stay with her for two weeks immediately at the start of August. He left Mary and David in charge of the campsite.Mr Jones received a telephone call from Mary after ten days. She explained that the campsite had been fully booked for the last week and they had been working 20-hour days to deal with the reception, customer queries and general running of the campsite. However, there had been a very bad storm which lasted over two nights and had caused devastation around the campsite: trees had blown down in the wind and customers’ tents had blown away. The storm ended that morning but David and Mary could not cope any longer and resigned with immediate effect.Mr Jones returned that day to the campsite. He was busy the following three days dealing with customer complaints, and moving trees and debris which had blown down in the storm. He did not have time to go and check the luxury tents, although he could see that they had not blown down.Three days after the storm ended the occupants of one of the luxury tents departed and were replaced by a new family. During their first night, at around 2 a.m., the guy ropes on the tent broke in a strong wind and the tent collapsed. Part of the wooden frame fell onto a bed where two children slept. The children were killed instantly.

Reply 1

Frankie1120

Hi I had the same question (OU?)

I approached it by looking at what I felt the most contentious areas were. I decided that for murder, it was the mens rea, most specifically the indirect intent. For the corporate manslaughter, I argued the factual causation based on the standard of proof.

Cases I found helped for indirect intent included Moloney[1975], Hancock [1986], Nedrick[1986], Woolin[1999] and Matthews[2003].

I finally decided he could not be guilty of murder because the death of the children was not a virtual certainty. Nedrick (and then woolin) confirmed that substantial risk blurred the lines between intent and recklessness. I therefore believe that, because there was no virtual certainty of death, it could not be murder through oblique intention. I believe involuntary manslaughter is more likely, along with a tort case of negligence.