The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ming Zuan Chua - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
syarat pengurusan kanan badan korporat dalam cmcha 2007 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate homicide act 2007 dan teori identifikasi satu penilaian senior management element under cmcha 2007 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate homicide act 2007 and the identification theory an evaluation
2013Co-Authors: Ming Zuan ChuaAbstract:Jenayah bunuh korporat merupakan satu kesalahan jenayah yang mengatributasikan kesalahan mematikan orang secara cuai ke atas badan korporat. Unsur niat dalam undang-undang jenayah sentiasa menjadi satu persoalan utama semasa mengatributasikan kesalahan ke atas badan korporat memandangkan badan korporat tidak mempunyai keupayaan untuk berfikir. Justeru itu, Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007(CMCHA 2007)telah digubalkan oleh badan perundangan di United Kingdom bagi menangani masalah kecuaian badan korporat yang telah mengakibatkan kematian dan syarat pengurusan kanan telah diperuntukkan dalam akta ini sebagai elemen utama. Peruntukan syarat pengurusan kanan ini merupakan jalan penyelesaian bagi persoalan ketidakupayaan badan korporat. Sebelum penggubalan CMCHA 2007, teori identifikasi sering dipakai. Walau bagaimanapun, teori identifikasi telah membawa banyak masalah kepadapihak pendakwaan dan sering menerima penolakan daripada mahkamah bagi mengatributasikan kesalahan ke atas syarikat. Sememangnya penggubalan CMCHA 2007 merupakan satu jalan penyelesaian dalam pendakwaan kes jenayahbunuh korporat. Namun, persoalan sama ada syarat pengurusan akan mendatangkan masalah seperti teori identifikasi masih merupakan satu isu yang harus dikaji. Artikel ini bertujuan mengkaji kompleksiti syarat pengurusan kanan yang termaktub dalam CMCHA 2007.
-
syarat pengurusan kanan badan korporat dalam cmcha 2007 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate homicide act 2007 dan teori identifi kasi satu penilaian
Jurnal Undang-undang & Masyarakat (Journal of Law & Society), 2013Co-Authors: Ming Zuan ChuaAbstract:Corporate Killing is a criminal offence which attributes the wrong of causing death by negligence upon the corporation. The element of intention in criminal law has always become an ultimate issue when attributing Manslaughter offence to the corporation since a corporation has no soul and mind. Therefore, Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (CMCHA 2007) was enacted by the legislative body of United Kingdom to cope with the tragedy caused by the corporation and the involvement of senior management of the Corporate is stipulated as a vital element of this offence. The element of senior management is considered as a solution to the issue of corporation incapability. Before CMCHA 2007 was enacted, the theory of identification is used for prosecuting corporation. However, the identification theory has caused problems for the prosecution and is often rejected as a mechanism for attributing criminal wrong to the corporation. Indeed, the enactment of CMCHA 2007 is a solution to the problems pertaining to the theory of identification. However, whether the theory of senior management could cause the same problems as the identification theory still remains an issue. Therefore, this article seeks to unlock the complexity of senior management as provided under the CMCHA 2007.
Paul Almond - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Attitudes towards Work- Related Fatality Cases
2016Co-Authors: Paul Almond, Sarah ColoverAbstract:This paper concerns an empirical investigation into public attitudes towards work-related fatality cases, where organizational offenders cause the death of workers or members of the public. This issue is particularly relevant following the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 into UK law. Here, as elsewhere, the use of criminal law against companies reflects governmental concerns over public confidence in the law’s ability to regulate risk. The empirical findings demonstrate that high levels of public concern over these cases do not translate into punitive attitudes. Such cases are viewed rationally and constructively, and lead to instrumental rather than purely expressive enforcement preferences
-
Corporate Manslaughter and Regulatory Reform
2013Co-Authors: Paul AlmondAbstract:List of Cases List of Statutory Material Author Preface Series Preface An Introduction to Work-Related Deaths Plan of the Book PART I: THE SHIFT FROM "REGULATION" TO "CRIME" Defining the Problem of Work-Related Deaths Measuring the Problem of Work-Related Deaths The Public Importance of Work-Related Deaths Regulatory Enforcement Practices Following Work-Related Deaths Corporate Manslaughter Reform in the UK PART II: THE INTERNATIONAL "Corporate Manslaughter" PHENOMENON Model One: Direct Corporate Liability for Homicide Offences Model Two: Attributed Corporate Liability for Homicide Offences Model Three: No Attributed Corporate Liability for Homicide Offences Model Four: No Corporate Criminal Liability Conclusion PART III: WORK-RELATED DEATHS AS SYMBOLIC EVENTS Theorising the Role of Regulatory Enforcement The Instrumentalism of Regulatory Enforcement Towards a Communicative Understanding of Enforcement Habermas and Regulatory Enforcement PART IV: REGULATING WORK-RELATED DEATH - A HISTORY The First Wave: Regulation and Legal Personhood The Early Second Wave: Regulation and the State The Late Second Wave: Regulation and the Public Interest The Third Wave: Regulation and Welfare Conclusion PART V: CRIMINALISING WORK-RELATED DEATH Differentiating Crime and Regulation Developing an Ambiguous "Corporate Criminal Law" The Emergence of a Corporate Crime Discourse From Crime to Regulation, From Regulation to Crime The Appeal of the Criminal Law PART VI: THE PURPOSE OF Corporate HOMICIDE LIABILITY The Normative Gap Within Health and Safety Regulation Understanding "True" Public Attitudes Towards Work-Related Death The Legitimatory Functions of Criminalization What "Values" Does a Corporate Manslaughter Offence Pursue? PART VII: THE LIMITS OF Corporate Manslaughter REFORMS The Instrumental Limits of Corporate Manslaughter Corporate Manslaughter as "Pure Symbolism?" Corporate Manslaughter as "Penal Populism?" Corporate Manslaughter as "Governing Through Crime?" Corporate Manslaughter as an "Imperfect Solution?" Conclusions Notes Bibliography Index
-
the limits of Corporate Manslaughter reforms
2013Co-Authors: Paul AlmondAbstract:This book has attempted to establish that the movement towards the criminalisation of work-related death cases, via the liberalisation of criminal law attribution rules and the introduction of Corporate Manslaughter offences, is reflective of a communicative deficit within systems of health and safety regulation. These systems tend to be instrumental in nature and technical in form, both factors that contribute to a distancing of the law from its legitimating foundations in deliberative public discourse. Criminal law, it is argued, has the potential to provide a more compelling public account of the ‘reasons for’ regulating, highlighting its connection to deeper social values. It can do this because it is an explicitly normative system of law that involves the censure of ‘wrongdoing in which the public is properly interested’ (Duff 2001: 61), and it involves making judgements about the accountability of the defendant for that wrong. It should make a statement about why compliance with the law is ‘right’ and so persuade the defendant and others of that rightness (Duff 2001: 80; Dzur and Mirchandani 2007: 156). In this way, the legitimacy of the regulatory system and the values it pursues are enhanced. Criminalisation is thus part of a constructive movement towards a more democratically constituted regulatory system.
-
the international Corporate Manslaughter phenomenon
2013Co-Authors: Paul AlmondAbstract:The early 21st century is part of the era of mega-Corporate capitalism (Braithwaite 2008: 19), and the increasing dominance of multinational corporations as institutions of economic, political, and social influence has been accompanied by demands for them to be held more accountable for their actions (Wells 2001). The post-2008 global financial crisis, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, and a host of other events have demonstrated both the centrality of corporations to the new world order and also their power to destroy the lives and livelihoods of individuals. The criminalisation of Corporate offending has become a key theme within the debates that follow these events, and there has been a new acceptance of the notion that a company can be criminally culpable. It is no longer the case that deaths at work are universally construed as accidents, which, if they are characterised as forms of wrongdoing at all, are viewed as matters of mala prohibita rather than mala in se. In this chapter, the trend towards imposing Corporate criminal liability for work-related deaths will be explored in an international context, to build on the discussion of the British context in Chapter 1.
-
understanding the seriousness of Corporate crime some lessons for the new Corporate Manslaughter offence
Criminology & Criminal Justice, 2009Co-Authors: Paul AlmondAbstract:The measurement of public attitudes towards the criminal law has become an important area of research in recent years because of the perceived desirability of ensuring that the legal system reflect...
David M Doyle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
criminal liability for deaths in prison custody the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate homicide act 2007
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: David M Doyle, Suzanne ScottAbstract:This article explores a provision of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which has been neglected by criminologists and legal scholars – the application of the legislation to deaths in custody. The article argues that proving the liability of a prison based on the definition of ‘senior management’ in the Act may reflect the problems associated with establishing the guilt of Corporate bodies under the common law identification principle and that the ‘senior management’ test may nullify the intent of Section 2(1)(d) and undermine the capacity of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to convict a prison for an avoidable death in custody.
-
attributing criminal responsibility for workplace fatalities and deaths in custody Corporate Manslaughter in britain and ireland
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: David M Doyle, Joe McgrathAbstract:This comparative study examines the difficulties associated with criminalising the predominantly male phenomena of culpable workplace fatalities in Britain and Ireland. Unlike Ireland, Britain has progressed proposals for statutory reform into law, extending liability not only to companies but also to a range of public bodies − including HM Prison Service − whose functions are most likely to involve causing deaths. However, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 has not yet been invoked for a single death in prison custody or, for that matter, a fatality in any other complex large-scale organisation in the public or private sector.
James J Gobert - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate homicide act 2007 thirteen years in the making but was it worth the wait
Modern Law Review, 2008Co-Authors: James J GobertAbstract:Despite a gestation period extending over thirteen years, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is a disappointment. It is limited in its scope, restricted in its range of potential defendants and regressive to the extent that, like the discredited identification doctrine before it, it allows its focus to be deflected from systemic fault to individual fault. As a result the Act may not curb the type of short-sighted risk management decisions that can lead to the deaths of innocent workers, consumers and members of the public. Further, by requiring DPP consent to prosecute, the Act threatens to entangle Corporate Manslaughter prosecutions in the political process to an unacceptable degree. Despite these weaknesses, the symbolic significance of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 may ultimately transcend its methodological deficiencies.
Suzanne Scott - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
criminal liability for deaths in prison custody the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate homicide act 2007
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: David M Doyle, Suzanne ScottAbstract:This article explores a provision of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which has been neglected by criminologists and legal scholars – the application of the legislation to deaths in custody. The article argues that proving the liability of a prison based on the definition of ‘senior management’ in the Act may reflect the problems associated with establishing the guilt of Corporate bodies under the common law identification principle and that the ‘senior management’ test may nullify the intent of Section 2(1)(d) and undermine the capacity of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to convict a prison for an avoidable death in custody.
