octaviar directors face 80mill class action, page-8

Partly true. This is what actually happened:

1) Original charge thrown out because there was
no such offence. Legal expression used was
along the lines: "No such offence known to law"

2) OFT then wished to amend charge but CS counsel
argued as follows:

a) Magistrate had no power to amend charge as
amendment actually created a totally new charge
which was radically different to original charge.

b) Would be futile to amend charge as the particulars
in the body of the charge did not support the
proposed amended charge and therefor a conviction
could not be obtained for that amended charge.

Bottom Line
===========
Magistrate accepted that, if particulars of the charge were amended, then a new (radically different charge) resulted and OFT were out of time in bringing the new charge.

But, if particulars were not changed, then a conviction could not be achieved. This stemmed from fact that new
(amended) charge stated that CS ACTUALLY GAVE false docs
to OFT official. But this did NOT happen. And no one has
claimed it did happen.

The falsity or otherwise of the docs was not tested in Court. This matter boiled down to CS word against the word
of a hostile competitor.