R v Cornish & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

These proceedings arise from the death of Mrs Cappuccini on 9 October 2012 at The Hospital in The City. Earlier that day, her second son was delivered by Caesarean section. Subsequently, Mrs Cappuccini suffered severe bleeding and was taken to theatre for examination under anaesthetic. The Crown alleges that grave errors by the anaesthetists caused her cardiac arrest, leading to her death at 4:20pm. Two anaesthetists are involved: the first, Dr Azeez, who left the country during the investigation and has not faced charges; and the second, Dr Cornish, the first defendant charged with manslaughter by gross negligence. Both were employed by Company A (The Trust), which is charged with corporate manslaughter under Section 1(1) of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (the 2007 Act). This is suggested to be the first instance of an NHS Trust being charged under this Act. The particulars allege that the Trust breached its duty of care by failing to ensure appropriate qualifications, training, and supervision of the anaesthetists.

On 4 August 2015, the trial was transferred from Maidstone Crown Court to Inner London Crown Court, with a trial date fixed for 12 January 2016. The current judge was designated to hear the case. Two applications by the Trust were to be heard: (a) that the Crown abandon charges relating to events before the 2007 Act came into force or alternatively prosecute for manslaughter by gross negligence at common law; and (b) that the Crown provide proper particulars regarding senior management's role in the alleged breach. A third issue concerned the formal designation of the hearing for appeal purposes.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Crown can rely on events occurring before 6 April 2008 (the commencement of the 2007 Act) in a charge of corporate manslaughter under that Act, or whether such events require prosecution under the common law offence of manslaughter by gross negligence.
2. Whether the Crown must provide proper particulars identifying the senior management responsible for the alleged gross breach of duty by the Trust, including the nature of their involvement.
3. Whether the hearing should be designated as a preparatory hearing under Section 29 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, affecting the Trust's right of appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Company A - The Trust)

• The 2007 Act does not apply to acts or omissions before its commencement on 6 April 2008.
• Charges relying on pre-commencement events should be abandoned or prosecuted under common law gross negligence manslaughter.
• The Crown has failed to identify the senior management responsible for the alleged breach, leaving the Trust unable to prepare its defence.
• The Crown should provide proper particulars, including identification of the relevant tier of senior management and how their conduct was a substantial element in the breach.
• The hearing meets the criteria for designation as a preparatory hearing, given the seriousness, complexity, and length of the trial.

Appellee's Arguments (The Crown)

• The offence alleged occurred on 9 October 2012, well after the 2007 Act came into force; thus the Crown can rely on evidence of earlier events to provide context and prove knowledge or omissions as at the date of the offence.
• Section 27 of the 2007 Act addresses retrospectivity of liability but does not restrict the admissibility or relevance of pre-commencement evidence.
• It is not necessary to identify individual senior managers by name; the nature of the relevant managerial activity is sufficient, and the jury can infer senior management responsibility.
• The detailed Case Summary provides proper particulars of the case, and the Crown will not provide further particulars.
• The hearing should not be designated as a preparatory hearing as the test under Sections 29 and 31 of the 1996 Act is not met.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the applicability of the 2007 Act in light of its commencement date, statutory provisions, and relevant case law. It concluded that while the offence cannot be founded on events before 6 April 2008, evidence of such events may be relevant to establish senior management knowledge or omissions constituting a gross breach after that date, consistent with the judgment in R v Lion Steel. The court rejected the Trust's application to require the Crown to abandon reliance on pre-commencement events or to prosecute under common law manslaughter instead.

Regarding particulars, the court recognised the Trust's need for clarity but balanced this against the impracticality of requiring the Crown to identify individual senior managers by name. Instead, the Crown was ordered to identify the lowest tier of senior management it alleges was culpable and to particularise how that tier's management and organisation caused or substantially contributed to the breach. This approach respects the 2007 Act’s intent to avoid the difficulties of the identification doctrine under common law.

The court further directed the Crown to provide two lists of particulars: (1) acts and omissions by the anaesthetists alleged to have caused death, and (2) management or organisational failures by the Trust creating circumstances for those acts or omissions. This would aid fair notice and expert evidence preparation.

On the issue of designating the hearing as a preparatory hearing under the 1996 Act, the court found that no ruling of law had been determined, no issues had been finally decided, and the trial was not of exceptional complexity or length. Therefore, the hearing did not meet the statutory criteria for such designation, and the Trust's appeal rights would not arise from this hearing.

Holding and Implications

The court DENIED the Trust’s application to exclude reliance on pre-6 April 2008 events from the corporate manslaughter charge and to require prosecution under common law manslaughter instead. It ORDERED the Crown to provide particulars identifying the lowest tier of senior management alleged responsible and to particularise the acts and omissions forming the case against both the anaesthetists and the Trust’s management.

The court REFUSED to designate the hearing as a preparatory hearing under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, thus limiting the Trust's right to appeal this ruling.

The decision clarifies the application of the 2007 Act to events spanning before and after its commencement and balances procedural fairness with practical considerations in corporate manslaughter prosecutions. No new precedent was established beyond applying existing principles to the facts of this case.