header-logo header-logo

08 February 2007
Issue: 7259 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Custody deaths under spotlight

News

Human rights groups have hit out at plans to exempt prison and police custody from corporate manslaughter legislation.
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill, which reached report stage in the House of Lords this week, creates an offence where gross corporate negligence leads to a person’s death in the workplace or in other settings.

However, while the legislation applies to police forces and government departments, as well as private companies, it excludes deaths in prison and police custody.

Now a coalition of law reform groups—JUSTICE, Liberty, the Prison Reform Trust and Inquest—has suggested a set of amendments to include deaths in prison and police custody in the offence.

Inquest’s casework service says there were more than 2,000 deaths in police and prison custody between 1995 and 2005, and claims that many of these deaths raise “issues of negligence, systemic failures to care for the vulnerable, institutional violence, racism, inhumane treatment and abuse of human rights”.

Despite a pattern of cases where inquest juries have found overwhelming evidence of unlawful and excessive use of force or gross neglect, no police or prison officer has been held responsible, either at an individual level or at a senior management level, for institutional and systemic failures to improve training and other policies. This is even the case when inquests return unlawful killing verdicts.

The coalition adds: “The government points to public inquiries as an alternative route to accountability—but it refused to hold public inquiries into the deaths of both Zahid Mubarek and Joseph Scholes.

“In both cases, the government fought the families’ attempts to have a public inquiry held in the civil courts. Without a legal victory by the family, the Zahid Mubarek Inquiry would not have been held.”

Sally Ireland, senior legal officer at JUSTICE, says: “The bottom line is that too many people—including children—are dying in custody and that the current law is not doing enough to prevent it.”

Issue: 7259 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll