Browne
and his ex-lover: the full court case
Britain’s most powerful businessman resigned this afternoon after it emerged
that he lied to a court about his relationship with a former gay lover.
Lord Browne of Madingley quit as chief executive of Britain’s biggest company
after the devastating allegations were made public following a House of
Lords ruling that rejected his legal bid to keep the details secret.
He also lost a court battle to keep secret allegations that he misused the
assets of the oil giant BP.
Lord Browne, who had been due to step down in the summer, will be replaced by
his designated successor Tony Hayward. BP, which said it accepted Lord
Browne’s resignation with the “deepest regret”, said that the chief
executive would lose his entitlement to a leaving package worth £3.5 million
and a potential £12 million in shares.
Lord Browne may now face a criminal charge of perjury after lying to the High
Court about how he met Jeff Chevalier, a student from Canada.
His sudden resignation, announced at 3.45pm, stunned the City. Since becoming
chief executive in 1995 he has turned BP into one of Britain’s most
successful companies. He has was knighted in 1998 and made a life peer in
2001.
However, his resignation became inevitable after it emerged that he had lied
to the High Court in his bid to prevent his former lover revealing details
of their relationship.
Following
his resignation, Lord Browne said: “I wish to acknowledge that I did
formerly have a four-year relationship with Jeff Chevalier.
“He has made these allegations about me and our relationship to Associated
Newspapers, publishers of The Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Evening
Standard.
“The allegations are full of misleading and erroneous claims.
“I deny categorically any allegations of improper conduct relating to BP.
“The company has confirmed today that it has found no such wrongdoing.
“My initial witness statements, however, contained an untruthful account about
how I first met Jeff.
“This account, prompted by my embarrassment and shock at the revelations, is a
matter of deep regret. It was retracted and corrected.
“I have apologised unreservedly, and do so again today."
Lord Browne, 59, had told the High Court that he had met Mr Chevalier by
chance, while exercising in Battersea Park, South London. He later admitted
that was untrue.
Mr Justice Eady, in a High Court judgment, said that although Lord Browne had
apologised he was not prepared to make allowances for a “white lie” told to
the court.
He added: “... especially by a man who prays in aid his reputation and
distinction, and refers to the various honours he has received under the
present Government, when asking the court to prefer his account of what took
place.”
It was ironic, said the judge, that Lord Browne should choose to tell this lie
at a time when he was maintaining that the court should heavily discount Mr
Chevalier’s account.
“A wholesale attack was being made on his credibility. It was said that he is
a liar, unstable and adversely affected by dependence on alcohol and illegal
drugs.”
Mr Justice Eady said Lord Browne’s assertion that Mr Chevalier was an
alcoholic “seems largely to have been based on an inference he drew when his
butler told him that his wine stocks were diminishing”.
When Mr Chevalier voluntarily disclosed his medical records, it emerged that
they contained virtually no support for the allegation of significant
alcohol and drug dependence at the material time.
He added: “It is thus clear that it is not only the claimant’s willingness to
tell a deliberate lie to the court, persisted in for about two weeks, that
is relevant in assessing his own credibility and the overall merits.
“So too is his willingness casually to ‘trash’ the reputation of Mr Chevalier
and to discredit him in the eyes of the court.”
Mr Justice Eady concluded: “I could refer the matter to the Attorney-General
but I cannot think that anything would be achieved by doing so. In any
event, it is probably sufficient penalty that the claimant’s behaviour has
had to be mentioned in this judgment.”
Mr Chevalier has also revealed details of meetings that Lord Browne had with
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor and Peter Mandelson, the European
Trade Commissioner.
He claimed that Lord Browne discussed with Mr Blair and the Chancellor the
prospect of BP potentially taking an important strategic decision. It is
also alleged that the Chancellor opposed a scheme which would have benefited
BP’s customers.
Lord Browne stunned the City in January when he announced that he would retire
in July from the company where he had spent his entire career. The
announcement of his retirement, a year earlier than expected, occurred just
days after the Mail on Sunday contacted BP with allegations about his
relationship with Mr Chevalier.
Lord Browne is on first name terms with most leading figures in new Labour and
his closeness to the Government has led to critics referring to BP as “Blair
Petroleum”. He is also a director of Goldman Sachs.
But his legal action to prevent publication of the allegations ended this
morning when the House of Lords judicial committee refused him leave to
appeal against the Appeal Court’s refusal to continue an injunction against
the Mail on Sunday. The Lords also said that Mr Browne should pay the
newspaper’s legal costs.
He had sought the injunction on the basis of breach of a confidence, breach of
privacy, the right to a private life and freedom of expression under the
European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Browne’s defeat in his battle to keep the details of his private life
from the public brings a disastrous year in the life of Britain’s most
successful businessman to a traumatic end.
The BP chief executive has increased the value of the company he runs
five-fold over the past decade, pouring more money into British pension
funds than any other single business.
But he has long insisted that his leadership of a multinational British
company does not open him to public scrutiny in the way that has become
common for politicians. He lived with his mother until she died four years
ago and it has always been understood that he never told her about his
relationships with men.
Lord Browne’s tormented year began last summer, when he started discussions
with Peter Sutherland, the BP chairman, about staying on at the helm of the
company, beyond 2008, when he is due to hit the company’s retirement age of
60.
He was eventually forced to announce an agreed retirement in 2008. But the
months that followed have seen a drip-feed of damaging stories about BP,
chiefly relating to the investigation into the Texas City refinery explosion
which killed 15 people.
The report into the deadly incident found that BP had systematic failings when
it came to plant safety. The last year has also been dominated by
speculation over his successor, eclipsing any hopes Lord Browne had of
bowing out on a high note.
In January, after he had been informed that The Mail on Sunday was planning to
“out” him in the press, Lord Browne agreed to move forward the date of his
retirement to July 2007. He has since been attacked by shareholders for a
£10 million-plus payout from the company.
browne got what he deserved for viewing a young life as a disposable. he corrupted the young boy by his gifts and the lifestyle he provided for 4 years, and then dumped him and expected him to re-adjust to "normal" life with minimal support. he also tried to blacken the boy's character by claiming he was an alcoholic and drug addict. the boy might have kissed and told but he told the truth, in a way he is a better man than creepy browne.
andrew, london, uk
For all those people out there comparing Lord Brown to Jeffrey Archer, lets get some perspective here, Archer was actually in court over something he had done wrong, Brown was in court for simply having had a relationship with the wrong man, the kind that would put profit before all else.
Brown should not have been put in that position in the first place!
To people out there that are quick to judge others, how do you think you would act if one of your ex-lovers wanted to reveal all your intimate details to the press? Is it fair that you even had to seek the injunction in the first place, considering the man is no celebrity or politician and is entitled to a private life like you or I.
Lei Wu, London, London
There is a paradox here. On the one hand, we should be ashamed of creating a society that hunts down people of a different sexuality than the norm. On the other hand, Lord Browne has told lies to a judge, and that is unforgiveable. Having said that, both Clinton and Blair did the same, and chose to ignore both public opinion and their moral obligation.
Trevor Hall, Oslo, Norway
When was the role of the media to inform the public of who is gay and with whom they had a relationship with? Should someone be forced to lie on oath to keep his private life, well private?
Loul, London, UK
Shame on The Mail with their history of persecuting gays...
Wasn't Lord Rothermere a big nazi supporter in the 30s... It's taking the group a long time to shake off their old values, isn't it...?
Garry White, London, UK
It appears that few have taken note of the comment by JG (above).
Lord Browne lied on oath. Whether he did it to protect his own integrity because he feared discrimination or whether he did it so as not to 'upset his mother', the fact remains that he mislead the Court.
There are many cases in which claimants and defendants are required to divulge very personal information that might upset or embarrass themselves or others in order to achieve justice. If a judge is to reach the correct decision in a case, it is imperative that all involved divulge such sensitive information, if it is relevant to the case.
Perhaps contempt of court proceedings will ensue and if they do, they will be justified.
As for him using his own status to gain credit before a judge, I see nothing wrong in that. The Court can take into consideration a person's character and having been made a life Baron (appointed by the Queen, not the government) is highly regarded in society.
JO, London,
I do not know what kind of Doctor Michael Parkinson is, not medical, one hopes. His spiteful bigotry, in demanding imprisonment for this perjury, is medieval. The noble Lord's offence is not excusable, but understandable, and he should be looked upon with compassion in being driven to commit perjury by a society whose narrow views seem to include Parkinson. Parkinson's comments about the Government are simply a red herring.
Geoffrey Elborn, Stromness, UK
Lord Browne's private life is and should be private.
However I feel most strongly that shareholder interests in public stock companies are paramount and "gifts" such as those reportedly being given to Lord Browne by BP are not appropriate.
John, Camberley, Surrey
The Labour Party and its supporters seem to be unable to tell the truth when it is obviously in their own interests to do so.It is clearly time that all of them must go and Browne must be charged and imprisoned if he has committed the same offence as Archer
Dr Michael John Parkinson, Tewkesbury, UK
I guess he lied because he felt that society would have a negative view on his homosexuality and for that society has a big cross to bare. The ultimate pity is not only the destruction of a brilliant career of 40 years but for him the denial of a nutruring long term relationship with a partner that didn't come from cyberspace.
andrew miller, sydney, australia
Lord Browne has been an exceptional leader. His record speaks for itself and he has surely done nothing wrong here.
He is a businessman and not a politician- he must be entitled to a private life
Selina, London, UK
It is not Lord Browne's homosexuality that cost him his job but obstruction of justice. He deliberately lied to the high court to obscure his relationship with Mr Chevalier. Once again, someone has lied to the court to hide something of public interest. If he had come clean about the relationship, he would probably still be C.E.O..
JG, London, England
It will be interesting to see how this pans out but it is amazing to me that anyone could invoke the honours bestowed upon him by our government as some kind of proof of good character.
Julia Dance, Clapham, London
Why ? Oh Why ?
Sex, lies and newspapers down an oil tycoon-- is it necessary ?
What a shame anyway ?
Human weaknesses and human judgment really no end !
Not the first and not the last--play on.
ian, singapore, singapore
I also have respect for Lord Browne and feel this is a poor way to reward him for all the hard work and accomplishments of his past 40 years at BP. I think his private life is irrelevant in this context but it was wrong for him to lie to the court.
Jill Eitrem, Cambridge,
Shame on Jeff Chevalier for going to the press. Why did he try to ruin Lord Browne in this way? What has he gained from going to the press? I hope Lord Browne has genuine friends to support him now.
Lois Kawa, Freetown, Sierra Leone
Why ? Oh Why ?
Sex, lies and newspapers down an oil tycoon-- is it necessary ?
What a shame anyway ?
Human weaknesses and human judgment really no end !
Not the first and not the last--play on.
ian, singapore, singapore
The cover up of the non crime appears to be the crime, fuelled with envy for a succesful businessman
who had a private dilemmma, perhaps he did not want to cause upset to his mother, he wanted to help his ex lover and despite the personal nature of the matter the media were in full battle kit over this imperfect and downward spirraling menage.
When's the next one? Perhaps it will be on TV too.
Chris, MIdhurst, West Sussex
Lord Browne's success as a businessman owed far more to the advice of his investment bankers than to his own abilities. You would really have to be an appallingly poor thinker not to have been successful as the head of one of the biggest oil companies over the past ten years.
Marek, London,
Anyone actually intrested? I know I'm not!
Sam, Derby,
"However, his resignation appeared inevitable after it emerged that he had lied to the High Court in his bed to prevent his former lover revealing details of their relationship"
Surely it should be "...to the High Court in his bid..." ?
I assume no matter how powerful he was, he was not allowed to attend court meetings while still in bed?!
Sebastian Trudgian, London,
It's a sad day for capitalism when a captain of industry who's done great things for his corporation must step down due to prudishness.
Oh how the French are laughing!
Richard Roe, santa ana, california
Mr Brown made enermous contribution to the British economy and the fact that he tried to cover up about his gay relationship is irrelevant .Jeff used immoral means to destroy a humble and highly talented Lord Browne.
The media has been after him but lets remind ourself of the midas touch he put into BP.
R Balloo, Sutton, UK
Lord Browne is the greatest business man of his generation. A true visionary. It is very sad the Daily Mail has decided to publish unsavory details of this man's very private life.
miguel, London, london
Funny how the first thing people have jumped on is his sexuality , when the fact of the matter is he openly lied in a court of law and rubbished somebody else's character whilst using his staus as a lord to gain advantage. So I guess thats ok is it ? as long as your a lord and the head of a multi billion dollar firm. As a shareholder of BP I certainly dont whant somebody at the helm of my company who thinks nothing of openly lieing and trying to gain favour just because he's a Lord.
ark, london, uk
This is very sad and irrelevant. I continue to have the utmost respect for Lord Browne and all that he has accomplished.
Lynda, Anchorage, USA/AK
Yep agree with all that - but he told lies on oath - Jeffrey Archer went to prison for doing that !
DRowlands, Newport,
I have enormous respect for Lord Browne and what he has achieved for BP during his watch.
My view is 'so what' in respect of his private life and personal activities and whilst he has been 'economic' with the facts, and is paying a huge price for doing so, it is sad that such a distinguished career should end in such a manner.
Patrick Thorpe, Rickmansworth, United Kingdom
A tragicly disastrous ending for what was one of the most successful business careers the UK has seen in a long time. It seems that Zinedine Zidane has begun a trend!
Laura, Belfast,
It is appalling that somone can be hounded out of his job over his sexuality in this way, which is essentially what has happened.
Lord Browne appears to have done only two things wrong. The first is that he iied over the matter of how he met his former partner. Whilst lying in courr is a serious matter, the issue concerned was one of intrusive gossip which has nothing to do with his job, and he should never have had to explain details of his private life to a court anyway. The second involves misuse of BP resources, but the instances cited are trifling. If he had asked his PA to go out and buy some flowers for him to take home to his wife, would that have been an issue to hit the papers? It is only because it concerned a boyfriend that the Mail on Sunday wished to publish it.
By the way, did anyone apart from Mail on Sunday readers NOT know that Lord Browne is gay?
Alan, London WC2,
How is it that in this day and age, we still view homosexuality as somehow 'dirty'? I couldnt give a flying duck if the entire board of BP are gay - who is really bothered? Such a shame that Lord Browne was obviously embaressed by who he is.
wendy lamb, warrington, cheshire