If it can be shown that BA knew of the previous arrest and investigation in 2000 - it is not clear from the article-
"Wood was arrested over the sex attack, but – in an echo of the Jimmy Savile scandal – the Crown Prosecution Service ruled there was insufficient evidence to charge him. He was allowed to keep his job at BA and, in an indictment of the vetting system, continued his charity work with children."
then I think the lawyers may justifiably ask BA why they allowed him to continue this work in Africa,.