This one I'm not sure about,
because it sounds like it's tied up in the whole corporate manslaughter issue. If the excavation wasn't shored up because it wasn't finished and there were warning signs etc then that's one thing, but if, say, there was a company policy that excavations didn't need comprehensive shoring up, or if "cost-cutting" led to substandard materials being used, then the director absolutely needs to be charged.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 23 Sep 2009, 12:45, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

I'm almost certain that they would have had those policies in place
I agree with you though, if they weren't then the blame can be levelled to the top, but if they are then it shouldn't
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 23 Sep 2009, 13:22, Reply)

I gather there was something particularly dodgy about the excavation case
I know a few people who were at uni / friends with the lad who died.

I don't know all the details (and presumably it wouldn't be a great idea to mention them online before the court case anyway) but I understand that it's a bit more than an unlucky accident / lack of common sense and a member of senior management does appear to be directly at fault.

I believe the reason they've chosen to prosecute this one as the corporate manslaughter case is that the facts are pretty clear so it makes a good test case.

I don't have any sympathy for the compensation culture in general but this case is about criminal law rather than pay outs.
( ElParrot, Wed 23 Sep 2009, 23:52, Reply)