The ITV drama ‘Trigger Point’ returned to our screens at the end of October 2025. In this series, the EXPO team, headed by Lana Washington (played by Vicky McClure) sought to find a serial killer bomber seeking revenge. As the plot unfolds, we find out that those the bomber is targeting were directors of a fictional company, DBN Construction Limited, which undertook ‘Project Coldmarston’ in the 1970s involving the demolition of municipal buildings including schools and hospitals, which contained significant asbestos materials.
A corporate conspiracy is revealed showing how senior company officials involved in the project lied to cover up failings in relation to asbestos. The bomber tracks down and kidnaps the officials one by one, getting some to admit that asbestos surveys revealed the buildings were riddled with asbestos but were ignored due to time and costs pressures. The demolition of buildings went ahead without the prior safe removal of asbestos, putting employees and contractors at risk of developing mesothelioma and asbestos related diseases. In one scene Lana Washington is shown researching corporate manslaughter. A colleague asks her “How can you prove that a company wilfully and knowingly sent people to their deaths?”. Understanding the bombers motivation, Lana replies “You get them to confess”.
The series made me think about why corporate manslaughter prosecutions are so rare in the UK and whether more should be done to hold companies or organisations, and those within them responsible for high level decision making, accountable for their failings.
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
The purpose of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is to hold companies and organisations criminally liable for fatalities caused by serious and systemic management failures. Prosecution requires there to be a gross breach of the relevant duty of care owed by the company or organisation, to the deceased. The failings must have been at a senior management level meaning those senior officials must have been aware of the dangers of asbestos but failed to take reasonable precautions or action to protect specific people.
The Act came in to force on 6 April 2008 and is not retrospective. This means that it will only apply to deaths occurring on or after that date. Further, company or organisation conduct or failures which may constitute a gross breach must also be from that date forward.
The problem caused by the passage of time
As mesothelioma takes at least 10 years to develop following exposure, with the average latency period being much longer than this, the passage of time is no doubt the primary hurdle in such prosecutions being brought in relation to asbestos failings. It remains common for those with mesothelioma to have been exposed to asbestos in the 1960s and 1970s, so 50-60 years ago. Whilst a death due to failings relating to asbestos safety may occur after the 2007 Act was passed, the exposure to asbestos which caused the death will have likely occurred decades ago, before the corporate manslaughter legislation was in force.
In any event, by the time those negligently exposed to asbestos develop mesothelioma companies may no longer be trading. Those who were the ‘controlling minds’ of the companies at the time may also be deceased. Contemporaneous records and evidence may have been destroyed. All these factors would also inevitably make it difficult to establish gross negligence and system wide wrongdoing in managing health and safety, as required by the Act.
In ‘Trigger Point’ the asbestos failings portrayed were in the 1990s. This meant senior officials were still alive and traceable, and the company in question had been acquired by another group meaning records from the time had been kept and archived. However, the conduct which caused employees to develop mesothelioma was still prior to the passage of the 2007 Act meaning a prosecution could not have been brought.
Why civil compensation claims are the focus
Further, those who develop mesothelioma may understandably be more focused on pursuing a civil claim to recover compensation to assist with future care needs for themselves, and loved ones, and to fund private treatment should it be recommended to them, to assist with symptom control and potentially prolong life expectancy. When time is of the essence it is understandable people will want to focus on themselves, and their families rather than seeking to hold powerful corporate entities accountable and becoming embroiled in criminal proceedings (where the 2007 Act may apply) which will not directly benefit them.
HSE action
Currently, the HSE primarily prosecutes asbestos failings under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and regulations such as the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 rather than under the 2007 Act. The burden of proof is lower meaning it only needs to be proved that the company or organisation created a risk of harm. However, when circumstances allow should the HSE be setting an example and be more proactive in prosecuting companies and organisations using the 2007 Act?
There are regular reports of companies being fined for breach of asbestos regulations – yet what does that really achieve? Reports suggest in 2022 a well-known high street company which sells products for one pound was fined for asbestos management failures when they hired consultants to survey some of their premises but then failed to prepare an asbestos management plan to ensure the asbestos containing materials identified in the survey remained in safe condition. In the same year a large transport company was fined £133,000 for failing to carry out an asbestos survey, undertake a risk assessment or give employees training in relation to asbestos prior to undertaking some construction work. Whilst this sounds like a large amount of money, for a company of this size it is likely to be a ‘drop in the ocean’.
It must be questioned whether fines are really a deterrent which lead to positive change, and support attempts for laws and regulations regarding asbestos management and safety being taken more seriously. Fining a company for failings will also be little help or comfort to those who were potentially exposed to asbestos as a result of those failings who could go on to develop mesothelioma decades later.
Deliberate withholding of knowledge
As well as day to day failings and breaches of regulations we are now starting to discover more about potential corporate cover ups akin to the plot in ‘Trigger Point’. Documents released into the public domain have revealed that Cape, the UK’s largest manufacturer of asbestos products, knew about the dangers associated with asbestos long before it became general public knowledge and they concealed that information, continuing to manufacture, promote and distribute asbestos materials for use. This deception led to large numbers of people continuing to be exposed to the deadly dust which has cost many lives. The legacy of their disregard for health and safety continues as people are still being exposed to asbestos from Cape manufactured materials within the fabric of buildings constructed decades ago, which are now deteriorating or not being managed properly.
Just this year, a product liability group action has been commenced against Johnson & Johnson relating to asbestos contaminated talc. The company deny wrongdoing, but what they knew remains to be seen. Indeed, in the USA, where product liability lawsuits are common, successful lawsuits have already been pursued against numerous other cosmetics companies and records uncovered suggesting there was knowledge about asbestos talc contamination years ago. The health and safety of consumers being disregarded for profit.
Corporate manslaughter prosecutions
In Italy, corporate manslaughter charges have been brought in relation to asbestos although the country does not have a specific corporate manslaughter statute comparable to the UK’s 2007 Act and instead prosecutions are brought under general criminal law principles. Swiss billionaire Stephan Schmidheiny former owner of Eternit was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison. He ran factories which manufactured asbestos cement products in the 1970s and 1980s and was found to have caused the deaths of hundreds of workers and residents where the factory was based, showing it is possible for companies and their high-level executives to be found criminally responsible for asbestos related deaths, in the right circumstances. Whilst this successful conviction was no doubt an important legal victory, a sentence of 12 years for failings which caused hundreds (if not more likely thousands) of asbestos related deaths does not seem to be anywhere near sufficient.
However here in the UK corporate manslaughter prosecutions are rare, and I was unable to find any reference to such prosecutions having been brought in relation to asbestos when reading about the subject. The HSE have focussed more on specific regulatory breaches such as those under the Control of Asbestos Regulations in relation to failures related to management, information and training relating to asbestos. These tend to result in companies being fined, and on occasions the prosecution of individuals for gross negligence due to their personal acts or omissions, rather than holding the entire company and those in senior management to account through corporate manslaughter charges.
Should more be done?
The evidential and legal hurdles in proving corporate manslaughter under the 2007 Act are significant. However, as time goes on there will no doubt be an increasing desire by those impacted by asbestos for stronger action to be taken.
How much longer can companies and those in senior positions within them attempt to brush serious failings under the carpet or seek to blame individuals at lower levels within the company or organisation. Whilst civil compensation claims are frequently brought, it is the insurers of those companies and organisations that usually pay. Compensation can help but does it really give those impacted a sense of justice and confidence that lessons have been learned?
Of course, for those directly impacted by asbestos, compensation through civil claims must continue being the priority so financial worries can be eased, and those with mesothelioma can access professional care, support and private treatment. However, people impacted also deserve public acknowledgement of negligence through such prosecutions when there has been gross negligence and failings which cannot be ignored.
More corporate manslaughter prosecutions would serve to be a warning for those in senior positions in companies and organisations that they cannot hide and claim no knowledge or responsibility. The associated sentencing and reputational damage would serve to be a stark warning that failings will not be accepted. They would also go some way to hopefully providing a greater sense of justice having been done to those who develop mesothelioma.
Corporate manslaughter prosecutions may also promote more stringent compliance with the law and regulations. A ‘top down’ approach and culture whereby those at senior management level actively engage in the implementation of robust health and safety measures throughout companies and organisations is needed. Such engagement would hopefully go some way to helping protect future generations who continue to be at risk from asbestos. It is also important to consider the possibility of extending the duty to those in positions of power in public bodies, as many public buildings still contain significant levels of asbestos.
Jennifer Seavor, Partner, RWK Goodman
