With a brief press release without further substantive details, Red Bull and Christian Horner hope that a line has been drawn under an affair that gripped the team and Formula 1 for months. But whether the woman accusing Horner of inappropriate behaviour will now cease her fight against Max Verstappen and Sergio Perez's boss is highly questionable. There is a significant chance that the affair could be followed up in a British court, with more consequences for Horner.
After the Red Bull GmbH management received the first signals that an employee of the racing team had accused Christian Horner of displaying inappropriate behaviour, there was internal surprise at how the team boss dealt with the allegations. Instead of saying 'sorry' and immediately buying off the complaint with compensation - on the condition that no one would ever speak about it - he went on the full attack. Before long, the whole affair hit the media, resulting in a PR nightmare for Red Bull, Red Bull Racing and Horner.
Had the complainant's feelings been handled carefully immediately after the complaint, the case could never have derailed as it eventually was. At least, that was the thinking among those involved. Instead of a settlement quietly - something that, according to Dutch outlet De Telegraaf, was only proposed earlier this year after the case went public - it became a media show. Thus, the alleged WhatsApp conversations between Horner and the complainant circulated from an unknown whistleblower, after which Red Bull GmbH in Austria had no choice but to still investigate the case internally.
An independent and unknown barrister - fully paid for by Red Bull - then conducted an independent investigation and came to the conclusion: Horner had done nothing wrong with regard to the now suspended woman. She exercised her right of appeal, after which a second barrister, together with the original barrister, took a renewed look at the case. It took them many months to reach a conclusion.
It reportedly took so long because the barristers did not see eye to eye: the new barrister allegedly found Horner guilty, while the first maintained that there was nothing wrong. As of Thursday afternoon, however, the investigation had concluded: 'Horner did nothing improper'. How the two barristers finally came to an agreement is unclear. The chances of this ever coming out are virtually nil, as both lawyers have a duty of confidentiality.
With Red Bull GmbH's announcement, the case has by no means come to an end. For instance, Red Bull must now decide what happens to the still-suspended woman. Will she get her job back or will she be dismissed? The woman must also decide whether to accept the outcome of the investigation. GPblog has learned that she is emphatically leaning towards taking the case to the civil court.
In that case, Horner and Red Bull have more to deal with. To date, all that has gone on between Horner and the woman has remained relatively vague - apart from alleged WhatsApp messages - but a public trial will reveal all the details. The British tabloids will no doubt report extensively on such a case, quoting from witness accounts and the evidence in full. However such a trial ends, Horner will always suffer publicity damage.
If 'shall be prosecuted' can be written anywhere, it is under this story; however Horner and Red Bull hope (perhaps against their better judgement) that everything is now settled.
Pure hogwash. Woke complainant should sue in the court of law and be ready to face any defamation lawsuit that may follow.
There's the process of lodging a grevience first and then once that process has concluded, the complainant can approach the courts . Please explain "woke complainant" ?
My perspective in a legal context, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" that's Horner, the "presumption of truthfulness " thats complainant in a court of justice. This was only a Grievance Procedure. There was no Judge, or any Disclosure to a Judge and it now rests with the complainant to take this to court for a verdict, independent of Red Bull or an "independent KC". So if the complainant does take it to court. At that point, the rest of the evidence, not currently in the public domain will become public, so we will be able to understand what actually occurred rather than the speculation & conjecture.
I mean, it was dismissed again. this is clearly a witch hunt at this point.
One does not conclude the other. It's not a witch hunt, it's a legal process which the woman is following correctly. Firstly, her grievance was dismissed by a KC acting in the interest of Red Bull. So, she appealed and now her grievance was dismissed by another KC acting in the interest of Red Bull. This has not been an entirely fair or equal process at any stage. It will become more so if this now goes to court. And the last thing Red Bull and Horner wants, is for that to happen. Because then ALL the details come out and there is nowhere for either party to hide. If she takes it to court, then I think we can assume, she is genuinely aggrieved.