Recommendation 12

The Committee does note views that combining what appears to be a high harm threshold with the requirement to prove a mental element may create a high bar for regulators, police and prosecutors. Prosecutors and legal commentators highlighted challenges in establishing intention or recklessness through diffuse corporate decision-making structures. On top of this, the Committee notes views that the Bill’s approach to individual liability within organisations may be unduly narrow. Limiting culpability to cases of “consent or connivance” risks leaving gaps where serious failures of oversight or governance cause severe ecological harm but cannot be characterised as deliberate approval or knowing participation.