UK security firms, retailers and banks face an increased risk of conviction under the new Corporate Manslaughter Act if found grossly negligent for the death of a cash in transit employee, it is claimed.
Aon, the UK risk adviser and insurance broker, is warning that companies, which may have previously escaped prosecution, that they could now receive unlimited fines and publicity orders, if they do not strengthen their security strategies.
Conviction under the former legal framework proved almost impossible as a company could only be convicted if the โdirecting mindโ or senior individual could be identified and found guilty for gross failings leading to the death. According to the risk management firm and insurance and reinsurance broker, prosecutions are likely to prove more successful as the court can consider the wider corporate picture by looking collectively at the actions of senior management. The Act does not apply to individuals but directors can still be sued through health and safety civil suits so are still vulnerable, whether the corporate prosecution is successful or not.
Data from the British Security Industry Association shows that 12pc of cash-in-transit attacks in 2007 involved a firearm and there were 13 serious assaults. Couriers suffered shootings, stabbings, pistol whippings, beatings, broken bones and post-traumatic stress.
What they say
Daniel Smith, director of Aon Artscope & Specie, said: โThe good news is that there has been 28pc drop in cash-in-transit attacks following an initiative led by the British Security Industry Association. However, a substantial percentage of cash & valuables in transit attacks recorded in the EU occur in the UK and the lives of security professionals still remain at risk. The industryโs strong commitment to security must extend to regular reviews and monitoring of its security procedures to both protect the UKโs 12,000 security professionals and its businesses from the impact of prosecution under the Corporate Manslaughter Act.
โObviously a company will not be held responsible for the criminal actions of a perpetrator but its negligence may be called into question if they, for example, failed to offer their employee sufficient protection from potential attacks. If a security company or bank can demonstrate that procedures were in place and correctly monitored, this could decrease the likelihood of prosecution and the potential for employersโ liability claims.โ
Tom Sheffield, technical director at Aon, added: โMPs such as David Blunkett have argued that numerous workplace deaths caused by companiesโ gross failings have gone without punishment because there have not previously been adequate tools to prosecute effectively. This inability to convict has been the largest driving force behind the new Act. Armed with this new law, prosecutors could be eager to put these weapons to the test. As such, this really serves as a wake up call to business to update their health and safety controls for the well-being of their employees and the public.โ
Aon is advising security companies, retailers and banks to protect their employees and themselves by:
checking directors and officers insurance policies to see if they are covered in relation to the new laws โ add coverage for both the company and directors so the policy will pay for investigations and defence costs;
implementing training workshops on how to handle a corporate manslaughter crisis in terms of business continuity and communications โ reputation was cited the biggest risk to companies in Aonโs 2007 Global Risk Survey and a conviction could lead to an order to publicise their offence; and
ensuring clear governance and internal control regimes in the workplace and that these are effectively enforced. Undertake a gap analysis on their legal and regulatory compliance.
