There has always been a controversy regarding sentencing the corporations for “corporate crimes” committed by them. The problems of finding an appropriate form of punishment were dealt by Professor Gray Slapper in the Corporate Punishment. The court of appeal gave guidance in sentencing for offences under the Health and Safety at Work of 1974 in R v. F Howe and Son (Engineers) Ltd. and revised the question in R v. Balfour Beatty Rail Infrastructure Services Ltd. . In between those cases, the Criminal Justice Act of 2003, Section 142 a statutory statement was created for the purpose of sentencing as for the punishment of offenders who commits offences, the criminal activity be reduced, the reform and revival of offenders, the protection and safety of the public, and the making of reparation by…show more content… In the case of R v. Rollco Screw and Rivet Co. Ltd. , the court observed that merely imposing a fine on a company necessarily punishes its shareholders. It is obvious for the shareholders and directors of a small company to be the same individuals. If both the company and directors have been convicted if an offence and the directors are fined, the fine imposed on the company should not in effect be double punishment of the shareholder and directors. A large company however can be required to pay a fine immediately as observed in the case R v. B and QPLC. The enactment of the law on Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act of 2007 also streamlined the crime of corporate killings. The punishment being fine as per Section 1(6) of the act but it also specifies the court to grant order accordingly in terms of publicity orders, remedial orders, and other ways. A definitive guideline on the Corporate Manslaughter and Health and Safety Offences causing deaths in February 2010 was also issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council
