The first prosecution under the new Corporate Manslaughter Act is shortly to take place. Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd is the first UK company to be charged with corporate manslaughter following the death of an employee on 5 September 2008. The junior geologist was taking soil samples from inside a pit when it collapsed on top of him. A post-mortem revealed that he had suffocated in the mud. The company faces a separate charge under the Health and Safety at Work Act and a company director has been charged with individual manslaughter by gross negligence and a health and safety offence.

This first prosecution under the new Act has been nervously awaited; however it should be made clear that this case would probably have been charged under the old law in any event. The fact that an individual director also faces manslaughter charges means that the company would inevitably have done so under the test for gross negligence manslaughter.

The present case is not a good example of the doctrine of ‘corporate responsibility’ the Government has tried to impose on companies by virtue of this new law. Yet again, it is a smaller company facing a manslaughter prosecution rather than the large multinationals with layers of management where it was impossible to determine individual liability.

Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, an organisation is guilty of corporate manslaughter if:

- the way in which its activities were managed or organised causes a death;

- there is a "gross breach" of duty of care to the person who died; and

- a substantial part of the breach was caused by the way in which senior management organised the company's activities.

The ‘senior management’ focus is intended to move away from individual liability of directors within a corporation and look to systems, attitudes and accepted practices across a much larger body of employees; which shows how this nervously awaited first prosecution under the Act is really no different to the numerous prosecutions previously brought for gross negligence manslaughter.

That said, the new publicity orders under the Act could now force the company to publicise its conviction and make good the state of affairs that led to the fatality. However, this being the first prosecution of its kind means that the publicity order will probably not be necessary owing to the numerous press reports about the case!

In short, it is unlikely that we will learn much about how this Act will be put in to practice by the prosecution of Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd. However, what is clear is that this may be the first corporate manslaughter prosecution, but it certainly won't be the last.

Organisations should ensure that they have robust health and safety management procedures in place; that responsibilities are understood and adhered to and a good safety culture is maintained.