The fleet industry is being urged to ‘get their house in order’ after a Gloucestershire-based company became the first to be charged under the Corporate Manslaughter Act, since it came into force in April 2008.

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd was charged following the death of a geologist on September 5, last year.

If convicted of the corporate manslaughter offence the company faces the prospect of an unlimited fine, while further penalties could be imposed under health and safety legislation.

In addition to the charges levelled against the company, director Peter Eaton has been personally charged with gross negligence manslaughter and with an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

If convicted on the manslaughter charge he could face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

David Faithful, a consultant solicitor with Lyons Davidson, had told delegates earlier this month at the Fleet News Risk in Fleet Conference that corporate manslaughter was “dead on the statute books the day it became law”, because of its complexity (Fleet News, April 9).

But, despite the company being charged under the Corporate Manslaughter Act, he still believes the charges under health and safety legislation are more likely to succeed.

“If the ultimate aim is to punish for wrongdoing then prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work Act are far more effective and are likely to be the way forward in light of the recent extension of the Magistrates Courts sentencing powers in this type of case,” explained Faithful.

However, more work-related fatalities which occurred after April 2008 are reportedly under investigation for corporate manslaughter, according to Active Risk Management (ARM).

It feels that the fleet industry could be most vulnerable from a corporate manslaughter conviction through the actions of their ‘grey fleet’.

“Grey fleet vehicles should always be carefully considered within any overall fleet risk assessment programme as they could prove to be a company’s Achilles’ heel,” said Keith Vincent, marketing director at ARM.

“It is incumbent on companies to show that their employees are using equipment that is fit for purpose to comply with all current legislation.

“For employees that drive for business, the employer will still be liable for the employee’s negligence in the event of a serious accident by virtue of vicarious liability, regardless of who owns the vehicle.

“So checking the condition of ‘grey fleet’ vehicles, especially as they may be physically seen by the company less often than company owned vehicles, is of vital importance if a company is to remain compliant with the law.”

Company director Eaton will appear before Stroud Magistrates’ Court on June 17.