Bombshell evidence tram lawyer now blames his jet lag
Key witness ‘too tired to give inquiry accurate testimony’
A LAWYER was suffering from jet leg and ‘clearly exhausted’ when he gave key evidence to the Edinburgh tram inquiry, his former employers have said.
Andrew Fitchie was told he may be guilty of fraud for passing inaccurate information to council chiefs after last year giving evidence to the inquiry into the botched project.
He told the hearing that the firm created to manage the scheme, Transport Initiatives Edinburgh (TIE), kept councillors in the dark about some of the risks involved.
Now Mr Ritchie’s lawyers, DLA Piper, have told the inquiry in a closing submission that their client was too worn out from a long-haul flight to give accurate testimony.
It said: ‘[The evidence] came in response to questioning during which he was not shown all of the relevant documents together and at a stage which was late in the day when Mr Fitchie was clearly exhausted.
‘As the inquiry is aware, Mr Fitchie had travelled from the west coast of the US the day before his evidence and would also have been dealing with the consequent time difference.’
Mr Fitchie’s earlier admission, made in October, was regarded as bombshell evidence. The City of Edinburgh Council (CEC) claims it was not given all the facts by legal advisers.
However, DLA Piper stated that Mr Fitchie was not fully aware of the facts when quizzed by senior counsel Jonathan Lake, QC.
They said: ‘It may be suggested Mr Fitchie appeared, under further vigorous crossexamination, to accept he had been aware TIE had knowingly misled CEC, and that he failed to do anything about that.
‘Any apparent concessions followed upon the putting to Mr Fitchie of highly selective parts of relevant documents.’
They added: ‘It was only in reexamination that Mr Fitchie was shown the complete documents as a package, as CEC had received them.
‘When that was done Mr Fitchie clearly demurred to the prior suggestion that the Close Report was misleading.’
The Edinburgh tram inquiry was set up to establish why the scheme went over budget. The project soared from £375million to more than £1billion and opened three years behind
‘Dealing with the time difference’ ‘Clearance to accept bonus’
schedule, despite being four miles shorter than planned.
Mr Fitchie admitted he knew the city council had been misled in key documents but did not raise any concerns.
The solicitor later returned a £50,000 bonus after DLA Piper had qualms about the payment.
Mr Fitchie told the inquiry that the bonus was due to his working 13-and-a-half hour days rather than the contracted eight. He said earlier: ‘It may be odd, but not exceptional.
‘I discussed it with DLA Piper, and I had clearance to accept the bonus. I declared it [to the taxman] and that’s where we got to.’
Mr Fitchie is a previous employee of DLA Piper, working for them for ten years until his retirement in 2011. He was assigned to TIE in 2002 and was tasked with managing contracts for the ill-fated scheme.
He also claimed he negotiated a further £114,000 for his employers from TIE.
CEC claims both it and TIE were left unaware of the consequences of entering into the contract.
In the council’s written submission, it blasted both the lawyer and his firm for their advice.
It said: ‘Neither Mr Fitchie nor DLA provided complete and accurate advice to TIE and to the council.’
Witnesses told the inquiry the contract enabled construction firm Bilfinger Berger Siemens to hold the council ‘to ransom’.
However, DLA Piper pointed the finger at council bosses for not reading and understanding the contract themselves.
They said: ‘Had CEC officials done that, they should have been perfectly well informed.’