ALEX Salmond has accused Nicola Sturgeon’s government of trying to “malign his reputation” by reversing his civil court win over it by the backdoor.
The former First Minister’s lawyer said the Scottish Government was trying to put potentially explosive material into the public domain which had already been ruled unlawful and defective.
David McKie, of Levy & McRae, told the Holyrood inquiry into the Salmond affair that the Government’s actions were “extraordinary” and an attempt to duck responsibility for his own failures.
He said that if it succeeded it would “defeat entirely the purpose and effect of the court action successfully undertaken by our client”.
Mr McKie urged MSPs to make it clear that the inquiry did not want to be part of the “unjustifiable” attack on Mr Salmond.
The claims are made in a letter dated October 5 released by the inquiry this morning.
The inquiry is looking at how the Government botched a probe into sexual misconduct claims made against Mr Salmond in 2018.
The former First Minister had the exercise set aside, or ‘reduced’, in a judicial review at the Court of Session, showing the whole exercise had been “tainted by apparent bias”.
The Government’s mistake - it appointed a lead investigator who had been in prior contact with Mr Salmond’s accusers - left taxpayers with a £512,000 bill for his costs.
At the time, the Government gave an explicit undertaking not to share the findings of its probe, or the material behind it, without the court’s permission.
The Government promised the Court on 8 January 2019 that “save insofar as necessary to comply with any lawful requirement, to cooperate with any criminal investigation, or as may otherwise be approved by the Court, [ministers] will not cause or permit the publication or dissemination to any other person of the said Investigating Officer’s report or any statements or other material taken or prepared by her in the course of preparing the same”.
However last month, deputy First Minister John Swinney told the inquiry the Government now planned to return to court to clarify the exact extent of that undertaking.
He said: “The Scottish Government therefore intends to initiate legal proceedings to seek a ruling from the Court on whether certain specific documentation which the Scottish Government holds is, or is not, covered by that undertaking.
“The Scottish Government’s position is in favour of the release of those documents.
“Once such a ruling is available more material may become available to be shared with the Committee at that point.”
It is this which has triggered the furious response from Mr Salmond, who sees it is as attempt to negate the legal victory he went through to overturn the probe.
In his letter, Mr McKie said: “To be clear, any attempt to share or publish documents which have been either reduced by the Court of Session (as unlawful), or which would breach the undertaking given by the Government and recorded by the Court, would defeat entirely the purpose and effect of the court action successfully undertaken by our client.
“Having lost that action and been forced to reduce the decisions made by the Permanent Secretary contrary to law, that the Scottish Government would seek to share those same documents and related material would be a matter which should give the Committee real concern for the integrity of the court proceedings and the availability of remedies for private citizens against the Government of the day.
“The only possible explanation for seeking to take such a step appears to our client to be a desire unjustifiably to malign his reputation, rather than account for their own unlawful actions.
“The questions and the remit for the committee are about the actions of the First Minister, Scottish Government officials and special advisers in dealing with complaints about Alex Salmond.
“The Committee’s own remit and published approach to evidence makes clear that the content of these documents is irrelevant.
“And yet, our client (as a private citizen) remains under threat of an attempt to produce material contrary to the legal obligations freely entered into at the time of the action being conceded.
“We remind you that the sharing of such tainted and unlawful documents would undermine the very purpose of our client proceeding with what he made clear at the time was taken as a last resort on his part and which only followed what appears to have been an illegal data leak of that material to a tabloid newspaper in August 2018.
“We would therefore invite the Committee to make absolutely explicit to the Scottish Government, and the public, that there is no desire or interest on the part of the Committee to recover any of the documents reduced by the Court or subject to any undertaking given. Providing that clarity is vital to our client, and to the public.
“It will also be of direct relevance should this matter ever require to go back before Lord Pentland [the judge who presided over the judicial review].”
The inquiry has already made clear that it has not requested the material covered by the Government undertaking.
Shortly after his civil court victory against the Government, Mr Salmond was charegd with sexual assault leading to a trial this year at which he was acquitted on all 13 counts.
His supporters claim the civil and criminal cases are part of a high-level conspiracy to ruin him and stop him making a political comeback and rivalling his estranged successor.
Ms Sturgeon has denied plotting against Mr Salmond, dismissing the conspracy theory as a "heap of nonsense".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel