This year will mark the 10th anniversary of the commencement of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The Act was significant in that it introduced a specific offence for corporate killing in the UK for the first time. Such reform was generally welcomed, yet many academics and practitioners were critical of what they perceived to be the Act's unnecessary complexity and questioned how effective it would be. The Grenfell Tower fire has recently stimulated renewed debate about corporate manslaughter and the ability of the law to hold organisations and individuals to account. To engage meaningfully in this discourse, it is imperative to review the Act's performance in practice over the last 10 years. The author offers an original contribution to knowledge in this area through (i) fresh analysis of whether the criticism 10 years ago has proved to be well founded; (ii) scrutiny of the extent to which the Act has been successful in meeting its stated aims; (iii) critique of the judicial precepts in this area; and (iv) new insights into the future of corporate manslaughter including how the Act could be more efficacious. The statutory corporate manslaughter offence affords a superior basis of liability to the unwieldy common law offence that preceded it; there have been more prosecutions, higher average fines and its reach encompasses more than just micro/small companies. Conversely, the Act is simultaneously a disappointing compromise; fewer prosecutions than predicted, unjustifiable inconsistency in sentencing, a continued lack of individual accountability and a prosecutory preoccupation with a limited range of defendant. The introduction of new sentencing guidelines and recent case law developments, including the first fine measured in the millions of pounds, signal progress and have gone some way to address these inadequacies. Despite this, it is questionable whether the Act can rise to the challenge of securing convictions in relation to Grenfell Tower and similar factually complex tragedies. In order to fully capture and prevent the wide range of deaths within the Act's remit, it is clear that prosecutors need enhanced training and a willingness to embrace a holistic reconceptualisation of 'offender'.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (the "SRA") is proposing radical changes to solicitor education and training. The Solicitors Qualification Examination ("SQE") has been extensively debated, but less attention has been paid to the proposed changes relating to qualifying work experience ("QWE"). In future, a much broader range of work experience, including that gained through clinical legal education, will potentially be able to count as QWE. This article addresses the key questions arising from the proposals, as yet unchartered in any depth in journals and scholarly writing. The background and detail of the SRA's plans is analysed, before consideration is given to both the arguments for and against clinical legal education counting as QWE. The practical challenges are then deconstructed. Who will be able to supervise and sign off clinical legal education as QWE? What type of clinical legal education could count? How much time should students be credited for? What policies will law schools
In this case study, we have summarized how we established a cross-sector partnership, agreed on a shared vision of all Kansas children living in safe, stable, nurturing relationships and environments, a shared commitment to reduce the number of children exposed to 3+ ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) to under 10% by 2020, identified six strategies for accomplishing this commitment and organized two workgroups to implement these strategies. As a result, we saw increased dissemination of information on ACEs and use of consistent messaging, changes in partners' organizations, and increased funding for evidence-based programs. With limited resources but considerable enthusiasm, Kansas has made great strides towards changing mindsets about safe, stable, nurturing, relationships and environments and creating a platform for supporting family-friendly policy change.
The second annual Commercial Law Clinics Roundtable took place at the University of Sheffield on 9th March. The event was well attended by a range of clinicians and clinic students as well as start-up and enterprise advisers. Louise Glover, who organised the event, started the day by welcoming delegates before briefly talking about the successful growth experienced by the University of Sheffield’s legal clinic.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.