SNP try to block release of evidence Nicola Sturgeon gave to Salmond inquiry
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
Ministers belonging to the SNP have launched a court bid to block the release of evidence that could show how much Nicola Sturgeon knew about the Alex Salmond scandal.
In a highly unusual move, the Scottish Government is taking legal action in an attempt to overturn a ruling by Scotland’s transparency tsar, who found information gathered as part of an inquiry into whether Ms Sturgeon lied to Parliament was subject to right-to-know legislation.
Should the Court of Session back Darren Fitzhenry, the Scottish Information Commissioner, it would pave the way for members of the public to seek the release of evidence obtained in an investigation by James Hamilton, a former Irish prosecutor.
While Mr Hamilton cleared Ms Sturgeon of breaking the ministerial code, he expressed frustration that heavy redactions to his published report, made for legal reasons, meant it had given an “incomplete and even at times misleading version” of events.
The crucial issue in Mr Hamilton’s enquiry was whether Ms Sturgeon had lied to MSPs over when she became aware of sexual harassment allegations against Mr Salmond.
He found that while she had set out an “incomplete narrative of events” to MSPs, this had not been deliberate.
The finding allowed her to remain in post, even though a separate parliamentary inquiry ruled that Ms Sturgeon had misled Parliament.
Murdo Fraser, the Scottish Tory MSP, said: “The public will be wondering what on Earth the SNP Government have to hide if they are taking action against a ruling from the independent commissioner.
“It will evoke memories of their actions during the investigation into the former first minister, when they put a block on that scrutiny expanding.
“Given all the huge challenges facing Scotland right now, this court appeal represents another waste of taxpayers’ money by this secretive SNP Government.”
Case to be heard on Dec 6
A case at the Court of Session is due to be heard place on Dec 6, before a panel chaired by Lord Carloway, the country’s most senior judge.
Cases can only succeed if an authority can successfully argue that the commissioner has not applied the law correctly, not because it disagrees with a decision.
Mr Fitzhenry said that he “cannot accept” the argument from ministers that they did not hold the evidence gathered by Mr Hamilton, and that it is therefore not subject to Freedom of Information laws.
He said that the investigation had been subject to ministerial oversight, had been supported by Scottish Government civil servants and that ministers, rather than Mr Hamilton, had decided what would be redacted from the published version of his findings.
If the court rules against the Scottish Government, it would not automatically mean that all the evidence given to Mr Hamilton would be released.
However, some of it could be made public, should the commissioner decide that it is in the public interest to do so. It is unlikely that all of the evidence would be released in full, given legal restrictions that protect the anonymity of complainants.
‘Tainted by apparent bias’
The findings of a Scottish Government probe into allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr Salmond, while he was first minister, were quashed after a court ruled it had been unlawful and “tainted by apparent bias”.
He was later cleared of all charges in a subsequent criminal case. The scandal over Ms Sturgeon’s handling of the allegations almost forced her resignation, roughly two years before she eventually stood down.
She has since been arrested, along with Peter Murrell, her husband and the SNP’s former chief executive, as part of a separate police investigation into her party’s finances. Ms Sturgeon has strongly denied any wrongdoing and both she and Mr Murrell were released without charge.
Referring to the Court of Session case against the information commissioner, a Scottish Government spokesman said: “We are committed to openness and transparency and recognise that scrutiny is essential for effective governance.
“As this case is now before the court, we will not comment on live legal proceedings.”
