When Sue Akers gave her evidence I wondered whether she was allowed to say what she did. I’m in no doubt she should have been able to say it. What are you supposed to tell Leveson – something like ‘Fuck off Judge, this is on camera and your inquiry isn’t important enough for me to tell the truth’? I take it what’s said there is under oath – which has something about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Any review should be on Clarke, Stephenson and Yates who have clearly been economical with the truth. If everyone was out running after terrorists as claimed, they could have farmed out the necessary enquiry.
Apart from anything else, what Akers said is just the kind of evidence that can be put to cross examination in any later trial and any effect it then had on a jury under direction could be made the right one.
Without people like Sue Akers being able to tell the truth as they are finding it, what is the point of Leveson and should it be adjourned until all future criminal proceedings have passed? What a farce – the AG should be considering whether this is an attempt to suborn witnesses through intimidation of law.