BA fuel surcharge case collapses

[teifiboy]

Prosecution have decided to offer no evidence

[Basil]

BBC News - British Airways fuel price-fixing trial collapses (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10104556.stm)
British Airways fuel price-fixing trial collapses

Prosecuting QC Richard Latham told the judge at Southwark Crown Court in London that he would offer "no evidence".

The judge had raised questions about the prosecution's case on Friday.

Mr Justice Owen said he had considered "whether the manifest failures on the part of the prosecution are such as to render a fair trial impossible".

The court heard on Monday how the Office of Fair Trading had failed to disclose key information to the defence.

One e-mail, only recently discovered, suggested that Virgin had increased its fuel surcharge without consulting BA, undermining claims the two had colluded on fixing their surcharges.

William Boyce QC, defending one BA executive, said that had this e-mail come to light earlier, the case may never have come to court.

[speedbirdab]

So do we get our £300M back?

[wiggy]

My my, BASSA were very keen to play this case up as an example of big bad BA management..what will they say now???

[fruitbat]

The 'fine' money was set aside in the accounts but is still in a BA bank account. I guess the money will now be used to outlast the CC in any protracted dispute.

[LD12986]

This PA report gives more information. Looks like a major mess up by the OFT.

The trial of four senior British Airways executives over price-fixing allegations with Virgin Atlantic has collapsed.

Serious and significant failings by the Office of Fair Trading led to the collapse of the trial of senior British Airways executives over allegations of price-fixing with Virgin Atlantic.

The OFT, which was bringing the first such prosecution over allegations of dishonest collusion between the two airlines, failed to disclose key documents to the defence over several years, Southwark crown court in London was told.

Prosecutors offered no evidence today after reconsidering their position over the weekend.

On Friday, trial judge Mr Justice Owen said he had given "anxious consideration to the question of whether the manifest failures on the part of the prosecution are such as to render a fair trial impossible".

He ruled that he was not entirely satisfied that was the case and said the "question of whether the prosecution has been fatally compromised is likely to be illuminated by evidence from one or more of the Virgin witnesses" and allowed the trial to continue.

But Richard Latham QC, prosecuting on behalf of the OFT, said their position was reconsidered over the weekend and they would now offer "no evidence" against the British Airways executives.

During legal arguments on Friday, the court was told that a year's worth of emails were discovered last week which went to the heart of the prosecution's case.

In particular, an email dated 21 March 2005 emerged which suggested that Virgin decided to increase its fuel surcharge to £6 instead of £5 before speaking to anyone from BA.

In effect it suggested no price-fixing or dishonest collusion took place between the two airlines with regard to that increase, the court was told.

Clare Montgomery QC, defending BA's one-time commercial director Martin George, said it was "an extraordinary state of affairs".

She added that 21 March 2005 was "the high watermark of the prosecution case" in that it led to two defendants, Alan Burnett and Iain Burns, confessing to some talks with Virgin.

Latham suggested the 21 March email, which was forwarded to Virgin's director of corporate affairs, Paul Moore, in June 2005, may have been "modified" in order to bring him up to date on the current situation.

But the trial judge said it would be an "astonishing prospect if the prosecution seek to rely on tampering of documents to make their case".

William Boyce QC, defending BA's former head of communications, Iain Burns, told the court Moore, who was granted immunity in return for becoming a prosecution witness, had "no real recollection of what had been said (between the two airlines) when first asked" by US authorities.

In admitting dishonest price-fixing to the OFT in the UK, "he was reconstructing what happened through emails and documents", Mr Boyce said.

"Had he had that email saying (that) before he spoke to Iain Burns Virgin were already considering going to £6, the situation may have been very different.

"The prosecution may never have been brought."

Ben Emmerson QC, defending Burnett, who led BA's sales in the UK and Ireland, said that, in the light of the new emails: "Whatever the Crown's position is, it cannot be acceptable.

There was a "lack of comprehension and definition" which made the prosecution's case "entirely untenable", he said.

"If one of the prosecution witnesses says a document's not relevant, then it's not considered relevant. I've never heard such an extraordinary thing, ever."

He went on: "By changing the one date, everything changes, including the states of minds of prosecution witnesses who were clearly under pressure in any event."

Emmerson added that the OFT's solicitors, Herbert Smith, could not even say why a vital piece of information was withheld from the defence.

"They suggest it was an oversight and may be due to the fact the interviews with (Virgin's) Paul Moore and Anna Knowles do not refer to that document.

"So prosecution witnesses are only being shown a share of the material. That doubles the danger."

[L337]

So was Virgin being economical with teh truth or not? And if so, are they now liable to prosecution?

[PC767]

After a brief read through this strikes me as a case of technical difficulties with the court action and does not suggest the guilt or innocence of parties involved.

Therefore the accusaction remains but nobody is being held accountable.

The OFT have failed to comply with simply legal procedure thus those charged walk free. It will be interesting to see if BA apply to have the fines recinded but on the face of it I cannot see this happening, this case wasn't to establish what occurred just who orchestrated the occurance.

[PC767]

Quick edit to above.

It seems that the civil case involving compensation was put on hold pending the criminal case.

Internal note from BA states ,

A BA spokesperson commented: "We are delighted that Drew Crawley, our director of sales and marketing, and his three co-defendants have been acquitted of all the charges laid against them.

and

"We have never believed the information provided to the OFT at the outset of this case would be strong enough to bear scrutiny in a criminal court.

So why did Martin George go?

[Viewfrom5Bells]

Now that very senior Virgin executives admitted in court statements that they criminally conspired to break competition law. Love to know what the USA Department of Justice make of this - self incriminating criminals who hid evidence to gain immunity flying into the USA

[Wilbur Gunn]

Can we now anticipate the following ?

1.
A fulsome apology and explanation from Sir Richard Branson for Virgin Atlantic's 'dirty tricks'.

2.
The resignation of those responsible at Virgin Atlantic, led by Mr Ridgeway.

3.
Compensation for those BA executives who were put in the dock by Virgin Atlantic's disproven claims, and against whom those serious charges were dropped so swiftly when the Virgin emails finally saw the light of a legal day.

Or am I kidding myself ?