Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts Responses - Law ...

1.1338 In R v P and another ([2007] All ER (D) 173 (Jul) the Court of Appeal was
concerned with a preliminary ruling of a judge upon the meaning of neglect in s
37 HSWA in a trial where a director of a company was charged as co-defendant
to the company. Latham LJ, in a judgment approved by the House of Lords in
Chargot25, endorsed the approach set out in Wotherspoon v H M Advocate, and
rejected the notion that neglect in s37 amounted to “wilful neglect‟ and thus
required either actual knowledge by the director of the material facts of a
company’s breach or whether the defendant had “turned a blind eye‟. To so
require, would equate the test of neglect with that to be applied where the
allegation was consent or connivance, whereas Parliament had chosen to apply a
distinction between the words consent, connivance, and neglect. The question
was whether, if there had not been actual knowledge of the relevant state of
facts, nevertheless the officer of the company should have, by reason of the
surrounding circumstances, been put on enquiry.
1.1339 The Court stressed how the extent of any company officer’s duty would depend
on the evidence in every case and endorsed the judgement in Wotherspoon
quoted above. Latham LJ described how the word “neglect‟ in its natural
meaning presupposed the existence of some obligation or duty on the part of the
person charged with neglect.
1.1340 Finally, in relation to the ambit of the persons “caught‟ by such provisions, in Boal
(1992) 95 Cr App R 272 (a Court of Appeal case concerning the provision in the
Fire Precautions Act 1971), Simon Brown LJ, having reviewed earlier authorities
concerned with similar statutory provisions, held that the intention of the section
was to fix the criminal liability only on those who were in a position of real
authority: the decision-makers within the company who had both the power and
responsibility to decide corporate policy and strategy (at 276), Its purpose was to
catch those responsible for putting proper procedures in place; “it was not meant
to strike at underlings‟ (at 276).
1.1341 The Court cited with approval the judgment of Lord Denning in Registrar of
Restrictive Trading Agreements v WH Smith & Son Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1065 and
in particular a passage at p 1069:The word “manager‟ means a person who is
managing the affairs of the company as a whole. The word “officer‟ has a similar
connotation … the only relevant “officer‟ here is an officer who is a “manager‟. In
this context it means a person who is managing in a governing role the affairs of
the company itself” (at 1069).
1.1342 In Woodhouse v Walsall MBC [1994] 1 BCLC 435 the Divisional Court was
concerned with the identical provision in the Control of Pollution Act 1974 s87.
The Court confirmed that whether a person came within the ambit of someone
who is managing the affairs of the company was a question of fact34; but stressed
the importance of applying the full words of Simon Brown LJ in R v Boal (1992)
95 Cr App R 272, which were the proper test. That test was whether such a
person was in a position of “real authority‟, and that phrase meant: “The decision
makers within the company who have both the power and the responsibility to
decide corporate policy and strategy‟ (at 443).
248