Laws which could see company executives jailed for manslaughter in the event of a disaster like the Paddington Rail crash were written four years ago - but never brought before Parliament, writes Paul Harris.

A Bill was drafted to enshrine in law new offences for reckless killing, to be known as corporate man- slaughter.

Had it been made law, it could have been used against Great Western trains after the Southall rail crash, and would be available to the Crown Prosecution Service today after Paddington. But even though this draft Bill is gathering dust on a Westminster shelf, there is a judgement in common law, made after the Lyme Bay disaster in 1993, which became binding on future cases.

A company was prosecuted in this historic case for corporate manslaughter following the death of four teenagers on a canoeing trip on the south coast.

The investigating officer, Det Supt Roy Thornley, did not try to accuse the canoe instructors of manslaughter. Instead he prosecuted the company they were working for. The Lyme Bay trial judge, Mr Justice Ognall, said in December 1994: "The matters revealed in this trial demand an immediate and thorough appraisal by Government.

"It is said that lessons have already been learned where parents and teachers entrust their children to those who run activity holidays. The potential for injury or death is too obvious for safety procedures to be left to the inadequate vagaries of self-regulation.

"I believe that authoritative control, supervision and, if necessary, intervention is called for. Nothing less will do to demonstrate that lessons truly have been learned. "These observations must be conveyed to the Secretary of State for Education. I also wish that material forming the basis of the evidence in this case as to what has been described as the 'rescue operation', and perhaps the relevant parts of my summing up to the jury about it, must be furnished to the Secretary of State for Transport."

To this day, Lyme Bay remains one of only two corporate manslaughter cases successfully prosecuted in an English court. The other involved a company called Jackson Transport (Ossett Ltd), which was convicted of corporate manslaughter in 1996. In this case, an employee was killed when he was sprayed in the face by dislodged toxic chemicals while steam-cleaning the inside of a tanker.

John Cartledge, assistant director of rail watchdog the London Regional Passengers Committee, said: "Because the law on corporate manslaughter is very confused, theoretically such an offence may exist. Almost all corporate manslaughter cases - notably the Herald of Free Enterprise case - have failed. "Clearly, the Law Commission believes there is a case for it in pushing to clarify the existing law, because it is very confused. We would have no grounds for dissenting from that view.

"What you cannot argue is that because there may be merit in principle, a particular safety incident on the railways would necessarily be a suitable case for the charge to be brought."

He said it was also important for legal cases not to delay the publishing of facts in a public inquiry.

"We were very concerned about the fact there has been a two-year delay in getting the Southall inquiry up and running, because of the criminal prosecution which was pending," he said. "As far as transport incidents are concerned, the law at the moment in this area is a mess and needs to be codified, and in particular the relationship between the criminal law and the civil law proceedings relating to public inquiries.

"There have been reports that the particular signal was one of a number that were the location for 'multiple SPADS' (Signals Passed At Danger). It is not clear whether the matter was being addressed with any great urgency by Railtrack.

"The Health and Safety Executive said the driver jumped the signal, but they were not heaping all the blame on him because they thought it was a systemic problem." Chief Insp Brian Gosden, of British Transport Police, revealed Paddington was being treated as a crime scene. Police are gathering evidence in case a prosecution is necessary, with evidence also being supplied to the public inquiry.

Chief Insp Gosden said: "We have established an incident room very early on and the investigation started within a very short time following the disaster.

"It is being treated as a crime scene. It was investigated as a crime. We are investigating the deaths of a number of people in addition to all the other issues affecting the incident. "The same procedures are followed. Part of the investigation is determining what exactly has taken place, including crime.

"The matter could be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, but obviously it is early days in the investigation.

"If the outcome of the investigation was such, then the CPS would decide on the prosecution of an individual or organisation."

*e-mail Paul Harris on pharris@nqo.com

Story date: Thursday 14 October

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.