What is the Difference Between Corporate Manslaughter and Gross Negligence Manslaughter
In England and Wales, manslaughter charges can arise from serious failures in professional duty, leading to tragic outcomes. Two such offences—corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter—differ significantly in their application and the parties held accountable. While corporate manslaughter targets organisational failures, gross negligence manslaughter focuses on individual misconduct. Understanding these distinctions is crucial, especially in light of recent developments at the Countess of Chester Hospital, where nurse Lucy Letby was convicted of multiple murders and attempted murders of infants. Investigations into potential gross negligence manslaughter by hospital staff have since been initiated.
What is Corporate Manslaughter
Corporate manslaughter is governed by the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. This legislation allows for the prosecution of organisations—such as hospitals, companies, or public bodies—when a death occurs due to a gross breach of a duty of care owed to the deceased. The breach must be a result of the way the organisation’s activities are managed or organised by its senior management.
The key elements of corporate manslaughter include the organisation being the defendant, owing a duty of care to the deceased, and the breach of that duty being gross and substantially attributable to the way activities were managed or organised by senior management. Additionally, the breach must cause the death.
Following Lucy Letby’s conviction, investigations into the Countess of Chester Hospital have expanded to include potential corporate manslaughter charges. Authorities are examining whether systemic failures within the hospital contributed to the deaths of infants during Letby’s tenure. This includes assessing management decisions, staffing levels, and oversight mechanisms.
What is Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Gross negligence manslaughter is a common law offence. It occurs when an individual owes a duty of care to another, breaches that duty through gross negligence, and causes the other’s death. The offence is indictable only and is commonly encountered in contexts such as healthcare, workplaces, and public services.
The key elements of gross negligence manslaughter include the defendant being an individual, owing a duty of care to the deceased, breaching that duty, and the breach causing the death. The negligence must be gross, meaning it falls far below what can reasonably be expected.
Gross Negligence Manslaughter Investigation in Lucy Letby Case
In March 2025, Cheshire Police expanded their investigation into the Countess of Chester Hospital to include gross negligence manslaughter charges against senior staff following Letby’s convictions. The investigation focuses on whether hospital management’s failure to act on concerns about Letby’s behaviour contributed to the deaths of infants between 2012 and 2016. While suspects have been identified, no arrests have been made, and the investigation is ongoing.
Simultaneously, the Thirlwall Inquiry, a public inquiry into the events surrounding Letby’s crimes, has revealed significant failures in preventing her from harming babies. The inquiry highlighted systemic issues within the hospital administration and called for legal safeguards to ensure transparency and accountability in the NHS. Bereaved parents have demanded reforms, including better whistleblower protections and psychological evaluations for staff. The inquiry’s recommendations are expected in late 2025.
In contrast, Lucy Letby’s legal team has submitted new expert analyses to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, suggesting that natural causes and inadequate medical care were responsible for the babies’ deaths, not deliberate harm. They argue that the original convictions relied on flawed expert testimony and circumstantial evidence. If the Criminal Cases Review Commission refers the case back to the Court of Appeal, it could lead to a review of Letby’s conviction.
What are the main differences between corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter?
The primary distinction between corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter lies in the party held accountable. Corporate manslaughter targets organisations, holding them liable for systemic failures that lead to death. In contrast, gross negligence manslaughter focuses on individual misconduct, holding individuals accountable for their negligent actions that result in death.
Both offences require a breach of a duty of care and causation of death. However, the degree of negligence required for gross negligence manslaughter is higher, necessitating that the breach be gross and fall far below what can reasonably be expected.
How can directors minimise manslaughter risks?
For directors and senior managers, understanding and mitigating the risks associated with corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter is crucial. Organisations should implement robust health and safety management systems, ensuring compliance with relevant legislation and best practices.
Directors should actively engage in the development and implementation of health and safety policies, ensuring that these policies are effectively communicated and enforced throughout the organisation. Regular training and awareness programmes can help staff understand their responsibilities and the importance of adhering to safety protocols.
Monitoring and reviewing health and safety performance is essential. Directors should ensure that mechanisms are in place to identify potential risks and address them promptly. Regular audits and assessments can help identify areas for improvement and ensure that the organisation remains compliant with health and safety regulations.
Establishing a culture of safety within the organisation is vital. Directors should lead by example, demonstrating a commitment to health and safety and encouraging staff to report concerns without fear of retribution. Open communication channels can help address issues before they escalate into serious problems.
By proactively addressing health and safety concerns and fostering a culture of safety, directors can minimise the risk of facing corporate manslaughter or gross negligence manslaughter charges. Implementing these measures not only protects individuals and organisations but also contributes to the overall well-being of society.
Concluding comments
The distinction between corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter is fundamental in determining legal responsibility for deaths resulting from negligence. While corporate manslaughter holds organisations accountable for systemic failures, gross negligence manslaughter focuses on individual misconduct. The ongoing investigations at the Countess of Chester Hospital highlight the complexity of assigning blame and the need for thorough examination of both individual and organisational roles in such tragedies. As these cases progress, they may set important precedents for future legal interpretations and responsibilities in cases of professional negligence leading to death. If you have any questions regarding this article, please call our office today on 02476 231000 or emailenquiries@askewslegal.co
