FOUR City advisers who received suspended prison sentences at the end
of the year-long Blue Arrow fraud trial were cleared by the Court of
Appeal yesterday.
The court's reasons for quashing the convictions of Mr David Reed, Mr
Nicholas Wells, Mr Martin Gibbs, and Mr Jonathan Cohen will be given at
a later date.
At the end of the Old Bailey trial last February, the four were
convicted of plotting to deceive financial markets over the result of
the #837m Blue Arrow rights issue in 1987, launched to finance the
company's bid for the employment agency, Manpower.
They were found guilty of lying about the take-up level of shares by
saying it was 48.9% rather than only 38%, and of secretly buying shares
to give the impression of a successful issue.
Mr Cohen, 48, Mr Reed, 44, and Mr Wells, 37, all senior executives of
County NatWest, the merchant banking arm of National Westminster Bank,
received 18-month suspended sentences. Stockbroker Martin Gibbs, 62, a
former director of UBS Phillips and Drew, received a 12-month suspended
term.
The appeal Judges, Lord Justice Mann, Mr Justice Ognall, and Mr
Justice Buckley, heard argument during a two-day appeal that the trial
was unfair because of the weight and complexity of the case presented to
jury, and because the trial Judge, Mr Justice McKinnon, limited his
summing-up to one issue and told the jurors to ignore 75% of the
evidence.
The Crown argued that Mr Justice McKinnon kept ''constant vigilance''
on the manageability of the case, and his decision to limit the
summing-up worked to the advantage of the defendants. There was no
evidence that the length and detail of the case caused the jury any
difficulty.
After the appeal Judges gave their ruling, Mr Reed said: ''I'm
absoultely delighted. It's been three long years.'' Asked if he had
thought he would win the day, he said: ''You don't think at this stage.
I've had my hopes built up before.''
Mr Cohen said: ''For the moment I am delighted. I can't make a further
statement until I've seen the judgment but I shall want to say something
then because I feel very strongly about a lot of matters in this case.''
Mr Gibbs said: ''I'm delighted, of course, but this is much more
important for the others than for me. They are younger men who have
families and still have careers. I retired three years ago but I am glad
to have my name cleared.''
An official of the Serious Fraud Office said she would not comment
until after the full judgment had been given.
During the Old Bailey trial, Mr Stephen Clark, County NatWest's group
finance director, and Mr Alan Keat, a partner in solicitors Travers
Smith Braithwaite, were acquitted. Three corporate defendants -- NatWest
Investment Bank, County NatWest, and UBS Phillips and Drew -- were also
found not guilty. UBS director Christopher Stainforth, 38, was acquitted
by the jury.
In the appeal, counsel for the convicted men argued that Mr Justice
McKinnon's end-of-trial decision to sum up to the jury only in relation
to one particular issue -- whether the men agreed to lie about ''late
take-up'' of shares -- constituted a material irregularity. Evidence on
the other issues had mostly been given at the start of the hearing.
Mr Reed's counsel, Mr Anthony Hooper, QC, said it would have been
possible to concentrate from the beginning on the one issue with which
the jury was eventually left.
''The trial Judge was invited by the defence to cut the case down but,
at the insistence of the prosecution, failed adequately to do so,'' said
Mr Hooper. ''When a prosecutor is faced with a case of this type, his
primary duty is to proceed in a way in which there is a reasonable
prospect that justice will be done -- that is to ensure the acquittal of
the innocent.
''There is no such thing as a crime that has to be prosecuted at
enormous length if you risk the conviction of the innocent.''
At the end of the trial, which was the second longest in this country
and cost nearly #40m, Mr Justice McKinnon called for reform to prevent
such lengthy hearings in future.
He said: ''No jury should be asked to cope with what they have had to
endure. No defendant or his family should have to suffer through month
after month after month after month all that these defendants have had
to suffer. There must be some other way.''
He made no costs order against the convicted defendants and did not
fine any of them or disqualify them from directorships.
The question of the costs of the appeal will be dealt with after the
Judges have given reasons for yesterday's decision.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article