Disappointed solicitors have this week slated government plans for the long-awaited Corporate Manslaughter Bill, branding it 'confusing, inconsistent and full of loopholes'.

The government has spent eight years working on the Bill, which is aimed at extending manslaughter laws to make company directors culpable for deaths caused by their companies. Under the proposed legislation, courts would be able to order remedial action against companies in the event of a death. Crown immunity has also been abolished in many cases, but some exemptions remain.


However, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) called for the legislation to be taken back to the drawing board, arguing that there were too many exemptions for directors from prosecution. It also criticised apparent 'loopholes', such as the fact that the Department of Health comes under the Bill but the NHS does not.


APIL president Allan Gore QC said it provided opportunities for those responsible for causing deaths and injuries at work to wriggle off the hook.


He warned: 'Discrepancies such as this will only lead to confusion down the line. The Bill is also meant to cover companies and not individuals, yet it refers to "senior managers" in its definitions.'


Clive Fletcher-Wood, a partner at Bristol-based Burges Salmon, welcomed improvements in the legislation, but was still concerned about an offence that depended on the random outcome of incidents.


'This [draft Bill] is an improvement, but the problem is that it is still outcome-based, rather than risk-based', he said, adding: 'Some people who say that directors and managers are not liable at law do not seem to understand that if they are culpable as an individual they can still be charged with manslaughter, or under the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974.'


He argued: 'We must ensure that this legislation is fair in holding the public and private sectors equally accountable. It is also important to ensure that what amounts to a gross breach is more clearly defined.'


Meanwhile, counsel's advice obtained by pressure groups Inquest and the Centre for Corporate Accountability said the 'limited and arbitrary' removal of Crown immunity may fall foul of the Human Rights Act.