‘Do not punish the innocent, Helios defence argues

DEFENCE lawyers in the Helios trial moved for a dismissal of the case yesterday in its summing up. 

The prosecution’s case rests on proving that Helios Airways employed unfit pilots to fly the plane. 

Defence Lawyers George Papaioannou and Polys Polyviou argued that there had been no testimonies showing that the pilots flying the Boeing 737-300 jet which crashed in August 2005, killing all 121 on board were unfit. 

There was an array of missing pieces of evidence, which the Defence could have used to argue their case, Papaioannou said. 

For example, the court was not shown any data from the Flight Data Monitoring system, Papaioannou said. 

Papaioannou added that no witness claimed that the pilots’ training records would have prevented them from flying planes. 

“We have the right to acquit the defendants at this stage because the (body of) testimonies falls way bellow the minimum requirements,” Polyviou said. 

Papaioannou said that the prosecution had submitted the pilots’ tests for 2004 and early 2005 showing they met requirements, adding that witnesses described both of them as “competent”.

Polyviou added that the Boeing aircraft turned out to have been unsafe according to the manufacturers who notified users after the accident. 

The possibility that this contributed to the crash was ignored, Polyviou said.  

“The only thing that’s worse than not punishing the guilty is punishing the innocent,” Polyviou said. 

The defendants, who are free on bail, are former chief pilot Ianko Stoimenov; chairman of the board of Helios, Andreas Drakos; chief executive officer, Demetris Pantazis and the airline’s operations manager, Giorgos Kikidis. 

They face charges of manslaughter and of causing the death of 119 through a reckless act.

Helios Airways is also on trial as a legal entity.

The Helios trial has been ongoing since November 2009. 

The state prosecution will argue their case today.