Why assume evidence given under oath to a BOI is true? I know for a fact, of one MACR that lied under oath to a BOI, and is stil employed by HRH.
And withholding relevant evidence, for what ever reason (but usually to protected senior ranks/grades) is an equally malevolent and disgraceful offence against people one has a duty of care over. The aim of the BoI/SI is, in part, to prevent re-occurrence. How can they make an informed recommendation or decision lacking vital evidence?
I do appreciate many disagree with this, not least Ainsworth, who has been happy to place this in writing.