The Case for Reforming Scotland’s Corporate Homicide Act

In April 2008, Scotland introduced the Corporate Homicide Act, designed to hold corporations— including partnerships, unincorporated associations, government departments, public bodies, and police forces— accountable for deaths resulting from gross negligence. This legislation was intended to be a landmark step in safeguarding public safety. However, as we near 2025, it is deeply concerning that no prosecutions have been brought under the law. How is it possible that, in nearly two decades, no company has been held accountable for fatal gross negligence? This raises a crucial question: has the law been effective, or does its lack of use reflect a broader culture of corporate impunity?

The absence of meaningful prosecutions under the Act serves as a damning indictment of its ineffectiveness. It highlights systemic issues within both the legislation itself and the enforcement process—issues that prevent accountability and leave families without justice, while corporations remain unscathed by the very laws meant to prevent such tragedies.

 

The Corporate Homicide Act: A Brief Overview

Image: Generated on Canva

 

Enacted in 2008, the Corporate Homicide Act was intended to be a significant piece of legislation for holding corporations accountable for fatalities caused by gross negligence within Scotland’s jurisdiction. It operates under the broader framework of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (CMCH Act), which applies across the UK. However, Scotland’s legal system has key distinctions from those of England and Wales. Unlike the latter, which refers to this offence as "corporate manslaughter," Scotland uses the term "corporate homicide," reflecting its unique criminal and civil framework. While both terms share a similar intent, this distinction underscores Scotland’s adherence to its own legal traditions, setting it apart from the laws in other parts of the UK.

 

Corporate Homicide Act: A Framework Without Enforcement

Despite its introduction in 2008, Scotland’s Corporate Homicide Act; has yet to result in any charges being laid, let alone prosecutions. Nonetheless, it outlines potential consequences for organisations found guilty of causing fatalities through gross negligence. 

For example, one key consequence under the Act is the imposition of unlimited fines. These fines are intended to reflect both the severity of the crime and the financial capacity of the corporation. However, critics argue that even substantial fines may be insufficient compared to the scale of harm caused, especially for large, profitable companies.

Courts could also issue  remedial orders, compelling corporations to address the issues that led to the offence, such as improving health and safety practices. While such orders may contribute to preventing future incidents, they do little to serve as a direct punishment of the corporation or meaningful justice for the families of victims.

Additionally, publicity orders might be imposed, requiring companies to publicly disclose their convictions, such as through newspaper advertisements or other media announcements. However, the limited reach of these orders often fails to generate meaningful deterrence or accountability, particularly when weighed against the reputational resilience of large organisations.

 

Barriers to Accountability: The Shortcomings of the Corporate Homicide Act

The Corporate Homicide Act 2007 has thus far failed to achieve its goal in Scotland, with no prosecutions under its provisions to date. From its inception, the Act has been unfit for purpose, with several key barriers obstructing accountability. A primary issue is the challenge of identifying those responsible within large organisations, where accountability is often diffused, making it difficult to pinpoint senior management linked to the gross negligence. 

In addition, the high threshold for proving gross negligence creates a significant hurdle. The law demands a very high standard of proof, often requiring clear, undeniable evidence of gross negligence at senior levels within corporations. This makes it extremely difficult for prosecutors to build a compelling case against large, complex organisations. 

The complexity of these cases compounds the issue, as corporate homicide investigations demand extensive evidence to demonstrate systemic failure. Alongside this, resource constraints prevent regulatory bodies from pursuing such cases, as the investigations are resource-intensive. 

Finally, the prosecution of public sector organisations presents an added complication, as penalties would ultimately be borne by taxpayers, making it more difficult to hold these entities accountable. These barriers highlight the fundamental flaws in the Act, which has failed to deliver justice or ensure corporate accountability. 

As a result, whilst these measures are theoretically significant, the lack of prosecutions under the Act means that their effectiveness remains untested under the Corporate Homicide Act. The failure to prosecute a single case under this legislation leaves families without justice and corporations largely shielded from meaningful consequences.

 

Advocacy for Reform: Political Push for Change

The persistent failure of the Corporate Homicide Act to achieve meaningful accountability has spurred advocacy for reform from key political figures in Scotland. Notably, Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) Claire Baker has been at the forefront of this push. In June 2020, she introduced the Culpable Homicide Bill, a proposal designed to establish a more robust framework for prosecuting corporations when gross negligence or recklessness leads to fatalities.

However, the Bill’s failure to progress past Stage 1 in January 2021 highlights the entrenched barriers that prevent effective accountability within the current legal system. Despite this setback, Baker has remained steadfast in her calls for a clearer and more powerful legal framework, emphasising that the existing legislation is fundamentally insufficient to safeguard public safety or deliver justice for victims and their families.

Similarly, the former Member of Parliament for Glasgow South West, Chris Stephens, was a vocal advocate for reform. In 2022, he introduced a Private Members' bill to the UK parliament, aimed at amending the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (CMCH) 2007. The Bill sought to address significant gaps in accountability and broaden the scope of corporate homicide charges in Scotland.

While the Bill passed its First Reading in June 2022, it stalled before reaching the Second Reading—a clear indication of the considerable obstacles standing in the way of legislative change. Despite the loss of his seat in the 2024 general election and subsequent departure from the House of Commons, Stephens’ campaign for reform remains a testament to the urgent need for a more effective legal framework to hold corporations accountable for fatalities caused by gross negligence.

 

Legal Struggles for Justice: Lack of Accountability

Image: Generated on Canva

 

In a 2023 Scottish Parliament Question Time, Claire Baker, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, pressed Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Angela Constance, on the issue of corporate accountability in the wake of workplace fatalities. Raised on 26th April 2023, Baker’s question sharply highlighted the limitations of Scotland’s current framework for addressing corporate gross negligence. In her response, Constance revealed that, since 2009, just 13 cases have been reported to the Crown Office in respect of corporate homicide and related charges.

Of these 13 cases reported, only nine resulted in convictions, while three remain under consideration and one was dismissed without further action. Despite these cases, no prosecution has led to a conviction under the Corporate Homicide Act 2007. Instead, the Crown has secured convictions through guilty pleas to lesser charges, such as breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 — a stark reminder of the Corporate Homicide Act’s failure to deliver the intended level of accountability.

Constance’s comments suggested that many fatal workplace incidents are being dealt with under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 rather than the Corporate Homicide Act 2007. While the Crown may argue that these decisions reflect the strength of the evidence, this approach underscores a disturbing tendency to settle for lesser penalties. 

The Corporate Homicide Act 2007 may serve a strategic purpose for the Scottish Government, potentially functioning as a bargaining tool. The threat of severe penalties under this Act could incentivise organisations to accept responsibility under the less punitive Health and Safety at Work Act, whether justified or not.

These reduced charges fail to hold corporations fully accountable for their role in these deaths, with fines often inadequate to cover the real costs of the tragedies. As a result, families are left to fight for justice, often feeling overlooked and unacknowledged in the face of corporate gross negligence, as revealed in damning data published by the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) and campaigning charity Scottish Hazards in May 2024.

 

Gary Robertson's Death: The Injustice of a Failed System

The tragic death of Gary Robertson serves as a harrowing example of systemic failures in workplace safety enforcement. In 2019, Gary tragically fell nearly 30 feet from a platform while working at the Longannet decommissioned power station, suffering fatal injuries. The demolition firm responsible, Brown and Mason, admitted health and safety failings but was fined a mere £5,000—a sum that did not even cover the cost of Gary’s funeral.

Karen Robertson, Gary's grieving widow, expressed her frustration, stating: “Something is clearly wrong with sentencing guidelines because a £5,000 fine is disgusting—Gary's funeral even cost more than that.” Her words underscore the profound inadequacy of penalties for corporate gross negligence, which leaves bereaved families feeling ignored and undervalued.

The Robertson family's frustration was further compounded by the lack of accountability from the company. They received no apology and were excluded from providing a victim statement during court proceedings. As Claire Baker observed: “The family received no apology from the company; they were not even allowed to make a statement in court, as it was a health and safety prosecution.” 

This exclusion underscores the systemic shortcomings of the Health and Safety at Work Act, which often fails to deliver justice or meaningful accountability for victims' families. Though the Robertson family ultimately secured a £1 million settlement through a civil case, Karen Robertson emphasised that no family should have to resort to civil litigation to seek justice for their loss. She reflected on the company's response and lack of empathy: “The first thing Gary’s employers sent to me wasn’t a sympathy card or a phone call—it was his P45.”

Gary Robertson’s death is a stark reminder of the failures of a justice system that often overlooks the severity of corporate gross negligence. Cases like his highlight the pressing need to enforce stronger measures, such as the Corporate Homicide Act, which is intended to hold organisations accountable for corporate gross failings that lead to loss of life but is not being effectively applied. Token fines and procedural loopholes do not deliver justice; they only deepen the pain of grieving families and allow responsible parties to escape meaningful accountability.

 

Justice Denied: Scottish Hazards’ Critique of Corporate Homicide Legislation

Image: Scottish Hazard website: https://hazards.scot

 

In response to the issues raised regarding corporate gross negligence and health and safety legislation in Scotland, Scottish Hazards kindly provided me with the following comprehensive perspective. This viewpoint is crucial for understanding the broader implications for families affected by workplace deaths and the persistent legal shortcomings.

 

Full Response:

Scottish Hazards supports families bereaved by health and safety failures and believes there were indications from the outset the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide (CMCH) Act 2007 would not deliver justice for victims and their families.

It is inconceivable any Government can see fairness in any society that tolerates families in Scotland, whose loved ones have been killed at work, being exposed to a system that fails to deliver justice for their loss, fails to punish reckless health and safety failures and imposes penalties that do not act as serious deterrent to others.

Why is it a Director of a company in England and Wales can face double digit prison sentences when found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter yet, in Scotland companies and individuals whose health and safety negligence cause death only face health and safety charges carrying a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment?

In 2005 the then Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Cathy Jamieson convened an expert panel charged with looking at options for effective corporate killing legislation.

The panel felt this would be best achieved by basing the new offence on recklessness and, for a defendant to be found guilty it would have to be proved they been acting or “engaging in some form of activity dangerously or recklessly, in a way that falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful person who is engaging in that activity, and in a way that would be obvious to a competent and careful person that the activity was dangerous or reckless.”

Ignorance of potential consequences is not a defence for reckless behaviour.

In addition to corporate offences based on recklessness the Expert Group suggested, in order to address the shortcomings of the common law offence of culpable homicide, a new stand-alone offence should be considered to ensure that the body corporate, and any individual involved in the act of workplace homicide could be prosecuted.

It became clear soon after the report was submitted the UK Government was to undermine the Scottish Executive by taking the view the recommendations of the Expert Panel were outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, a position with which many members of the Expert Panel disagreed. 

There have been three attempts to address the inequalities of the CMCH Act, most recently by Claire Baker MSP who proposed two new offences causing the death of a person recklessly or by gross negligence, in addition to the current law on culpable homicide.

These proposals would have introduced the concept of gross negligence into Scots law and would have led to consistency across the distinct legal jurisdictions.

But once again the question of legislative competence question was used to quash the aspirations Claire Baker MSP to deliver justice for families in Scotland, bereaved as a result of health and safety failures at work.

Why were her proposals deemed to be out with the competence of the Scottish Parliament?

The answer can be found in the Stage 1 Report on the Culpable Homicide (Scotland) Bill.

“The reasons for this view were that: (1) the Bill as a whole relates to the subject-matter of Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which is a matter reserved under paragraph H2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998; and (2) the Bill as a whole relates to the operation or regulation of business associations which are matters reserved under paragraph C1 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Section 29(2)(b) of the 1998 Act states that a provision is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament if it relates to reserved matters. Whether a provision relates to a reserved matter is to be determined by reference to the purpose of the provision, having regard (among other things) to its effect in all the circumstances.” 

However, there have been occasions where legislation intended to protect the health and safety of certain groups of workers after was passed without any question being raised about legislative competence.

The first, the Emergency (Scotland) Act 2005 was introduced to make it a specific offence to assault, obstruct or delay someone providing an emergency service, or someone assisting an emergency worker in an emergency situation.

The Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act in 2021 makes it an offence to threaten, abuse or threaten someone who is a retail worker engaged in retail work.

For both, a person will have been deemed to have committed an offence if they knew or ought it to have known the person they assaulted were working in the roles afforded protection under these pieces of legislation. These two acts have the same. 

This raises the question why the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate to address inconsistencies in the way corporate killing offences are prosecuted in Scotland compared to England and Wales.

Why does culpability for acts of culpable homicide, Scotland second most serious offence cease, at the factory gates?

Why can culpable homicide not be prosecuted in the workplace in the same way as bosses in England and Wales have been on charges of gross negligence manslaughter.

Is this a constitutional issue as the Scottish Government suggests? If so, the answer has to be to devolve health and safety legislation to Scotland. A move supported by Scottish Hazards, the STUC and many trade unions.

There is an ongoing review of the law of Culpable Homicide by the Scottish Law Commission, used in the past by the Scottish Government to justify not taking action. This work started in 2018 and was expected to be completed by 2024, there is no indication this will be the case.

In fact, the Scottish Government, in a response to a question by Claire Baker MSP stated that work related involuntary act homicide, the proposed alternative offence to the ineffective corporate homicide law would not be part of the review.

If the only barrier to delivering justice for victims of corporate killing and their loved ones is a lack of political will, then, the Scottish Government and the other parties who failed to support Claire Baker’s proposals should hang their heads in shame.

The lack of any meaningful progress to address historic denial of justice bereaved families have faced should be an embarrassment to our Government and the Scottish Parliament. This month, three days before Christmas on the 22 December 2025 will be the 25th anniversary of the Larkhall Gas Explosion, the tragedy that claimed the lives of Andrew and Janette Findlay and their children Stacey, 13, and Daryl, 11. Their deaths was to lead to the review of corporate homicide legislation and the introduction of the CMCHA Act 2007.

Unfortunately, 25 years on families are still being denied justice and have to wait for years to find those responsible for the homicide of loved ones held to account and punished accordingly, at the moment does the law allow delivering their accountability and justice for families, we think not.

 

This above response from Scottish Hazards (in italics) highlights the urgent need for reform in corporate homicide legislation in Scotland, underlining the disparity in how workplace deaths are treated in Scotland compared to England and Wales, and calling for decisive legislative action to deliver justice for bereaved families.

 

Conclusion

The glaring absence of prosecutions under the Corporate Homicide Act since its inception serves as a powerful indictment of the state of the lack of corporate accountability in Scotland. Intended to safeguard public safety and deliver justice for victims, this legislation has instead exposed deep systemic failures. As we move forward, it is critical that lawmakers, advocates, and the public unite in demanding urgent reform to address the formidable barriers hindering effective corporate accountability. Only through sustained and concerted effort can we hope to reshape the legal framework to hold corporations accountable for their actions, prevent further loss of life, and deliver justice to grieving families. The voices of advocates, affected families, and legal experts cannot be ignored— they must be central to any movement for change. Their calls for reform are not just essential—they reflect a moral imperative to create a safer, more just Scotland where corporate gross negligence no longer goes unpunished.

 

If you are interested in reading more about this injustice, Sharon Hartles has published an article on the British Society of Criminology blog that may be of interest: Unmasking Ineffectiveness: The UKs Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007  

 

Sharon Hartles, Member of the Harm and Evidence Research Collaborative, The Open University. Member of the British Society of Criminology. Affiliated with the Risky Hormones research project (an international collaboration in partnership with patient groups).

 

Acknowledgment

With sincere thanks to Scottish Hazards, a charity dedicated to improving workplace health and safety, for providing valuable insights into the challenges surrounding workplace safety and corporate accountability. Their perspective underscores the systemic issues faced by workers, particularly those who are not part of trade unions, and highlights the urgent need for reform in workplace safety legislation. Scottish Hazards also offers essential support, advice, and free legal assistance to those affected by workplace injuries or illnesses. For more information, visit their website: https://hazards.scot