Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard C
I might be being pedantic on this, but I don't think that is correct. The barrister wasn't hired to question Horner, he was hired to lead the investigation and present this to Red Bull. Of which questioning Horner was part of it.
I haven't read their press releases, but I don't know if they said they brought someone into to perform an "impartial" investigation or not.
I am not saying Horner is guilty or that Red Bull is acting in a nefarious way. But... Red Bull is doing a good job of keeping details closed so that it allows for this type of cynical perspective to exist.
|
Red Bull's statement in full here.
"independent" is a widely used legal term that implies impartiality - is often used in mediation of legal disputes for example - "independent mediator appointed". Independent legally means that the investigator is not subject to direction, although terms of reference (effectively parameters) to an independent investigation can be put in place.
Details HAVE to be closed - Red Bull is not entitled to release information that might identify the complainant, unless of course the complainant identifies themselves or agrees for the information to be released. There are strong legal protections in place in most countries for complainants to prevent their public identification, unless they agree to be identified.