What's going on here then? Yesterday, Otis Ferry was cleared of the witness intimidation charges for which he'd been locked up for four months. Because the prosecution offered no evidence. And then wouldn't explain why. Telegraph story here. My earlier report here.
Prosecutor Kerry Barker told Gloucester Crown Court: "I don't intend to explain in a public court why those instructing me took the decision they took. The reasons why are not a matter that is or should be in the public domain."
Smells decidedly fishy to me. If there wasn't any evidence, what was the justification for locking him up? And if there was, why are they being so mysterious about not presenting it in court?
Maybe I've been watching Spooks too much, but it sounds a bit like one of those scenarios where the security services don't want details of their surveillance methods to come out in open court.
UPDATE: The swearier bloggers on the net are getting quite aerated about this one. See Ambush Predator, Devil's Kitchen and Englishman's Castle.