Police are probing whether a senior civil servant “gave a false statement under oath” to an inquiry set up to investigate sexual misconduct allegations involving Alex Salmond, a court heard. 

Lawyer Gordon Dangerfield told a Court of Session hearing on Friday that detectives are probing the alleged conduct of James Hynd.

Mr Dangerfield is representing the former First Minister in an action which he has brought against the Scottish Government. 

Mr Salmond is seeking "significant damages" and compensation for loss of earnings that could total millions of pounds from Ministers.

He is alleging "malfeasance" by various former and current Scottish Government civil servants with his legal team arguing that they "conducted themselves improperly, in bad faith and beyond their powers, with the intention of injuring Mr Salmond”.

 They say this happened during a botched investigation carried out by civil servants over claims that the ex SNP leader acted inappropriately towards a number of women during his time in office. 

Read More:

On Friday, Mr Dangerfield told Lord Fairley that the Police Scotland investigation is called Operation Broadcroft and it is being headed by a senior detective. 

The solicitor advocate, who once represented ex SSP leader Tommy Sheridan in court, told Lord Fairley that the investigation is looking at the alleged behaviour of Mr Hynd. 

Mr Hynd was described in August 2020 as being the Scottish Government’s head of Cabinet, Parliament and Governance. 

Mr Dangerfield said:  “I can advise that the ongoing Police Scotland investigation is named Operation Broadcroft. it is led by senior investigating officer Detective Superintendent Graham Lannigan. 

“It arises from a criminal complaint by the pursuer covering precisely all of the malfeasance averred in the articles of condescence specified in the motion. 

“The pursuer has been advised that the present focus of the investigation is on offences of wilfully making false statements on oath contrary to section 44 (1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Scotland Act 1995. 

“The pursuer anticipates however that this focus will broaden as the investigation proceeds and in due course cover his complaint covering the full range of criminality averred in these articles of condescendence.

"I would hope it would be evident to your lordship from a perusal of the averments that it would be a necessary course for the inquiry to follow - there’s a very, very specific case that in my submission is self evident in these averments - that the head of cabinet - a very, very senior civil servant - Mr James Hynd - gave a false statement on oath at the inquiry. 

Alex SalmondAlex Salmond (Image: Colin Mearns)

“The evidence in the averments are very detailed and specific in the summons. I would be seeking to take your lordship to them because that constitutes a very, very specific and clear averment of crime and there is no doubt whatsoever that is presently being focused on by Operation Broadcroft because the pursuer has been specifically advised about that.”

Mr Salmond won a judicial review in 2019 when the court found that the way a Scottish Government investigation into the allegations against him was handled was unlawful and "tainted with apparent bias".

A senior civil servant was appointed the investigating officer in the government inquiry, which started in early 2018, despite previously having contact with the two complainants.

The Scottish Government only conceded the judicial review case at the 11th hour, resulting in Mr Salmond being handed £512,250 of taxpayers' money to cover his legal costs.

The former SNP leader was cleared of 14 sexual assault charges in a separate criminal trial in 2020. He alleged at the time there was a conspiracy among senior SNP figures around ex first minister Nicola Sturgeon to imprison him.

Ms Sturgeon vigorously denied being part of a "cover-up" or "conspiracy", although she admitted the scandal had resulted in the breakdown of the relationship between her and the now Alba leader. She described this relationship as being “very important to me, politically and personally, for most of my life".

Among those named in the present action are Ms Sturgeon, his successor as SNP leader and first minister, and Leslie Evans, the Scottish Government's former permanent secretary. 

Ms Sturgeon said she "utterly refutes" his claims.

Mr Salmond's lawyers claim  they had taken part "in the criminal leaking of confidential documents, the concealment of documents in defiance of court orders and a criminal warrant, the misleading of the court during judicial review proceedings, the soliciting of false criminal complaints, and ultimately the commission of perjury at a parliamentary inquiry".

On Friday, Mr Dangerfield asked for the case to be “sisted” - a legal expression for it to be paused. 

The court heard that if successful, this would be the fourth time the case would have been paused since being brought in November last year. 

Mr Dangerfield said he wanted the case to be paused because of Operation Broadcroft. 

He feared that the police investigation may uncover evidence which could disadvantage the officials at the centre of the Court of session action. 

Lesley Shand KC, for the Scottish Government, urged Lord Fairley to reject the request for the sist to be extended. 

She said: “Your lordship knows that it was raised in November 2023. 

“It’s been sisted three times already - once for another police investigation that came to nothing and here we are again - this is the fourth motion for a sist.

“There is a concern about the length of time has past since the events in question - there is a concern about the effect that will have on evidence and also on individuals who have this these allegations hanging over them in this summons. 

“The fact of the matter is the onus is on the pursuer to demonstrate that it would be in the interests of justice for it to be delayed. 

“in my submission, my learned friend, my friend has not reached the first hurdle of demonstrating this litigation causes a very specific and real risk to a prosecution and the conclusion of criminal proceedings - if there are ever criminal proceedings which is highly speculative.”

Lord Fairley made reference to a legal judgment made recently by his colleague Lord Sandison. 

In this opinion, Lord Sandison established a set of tests which lawyers need to meet in order to pause civil actions in cases where there is also potential criminal actions. 

Lord Fairley said the circumstances of the present case didn’t appear to meet the tests set out by Lord Sandison. 

He refused the request to extend the sist. 

He added: “If any stage during that process any party identifies a risk of prejudice to the police inquiry, parties are at liberty to bring the matter back before me to revisit the decision on whether or not there should be a decision for further procedure in this action - but for the moment I am completely unpersuaded by the mere fact of an on going police investigation; the outcome of which we simply cannot guess at comes anywhere close to meeting the test required to maintain a sist in place. 

“For those reasons, i will refuse the motion to continue the sist and make an order for defences to be lodged within seven days.”

Ms Shand moved for Mr Salmond to pay for the legal costs of today’s hearing. Mr Dangerfield asked Lord Fairley to reserve expenses until the hearing was concluded. 

Lord Fairley awarded expenses to Ms Shand and made reference to what happened in the run up to Friday’s hearing. 

He said: “Ms Shand has been successful. It seems to me that the pre motion correspondence about this was unnecessarily belligerent and unhelpful and if that had been conducted in a more responsible way it does not seem to me that this motion would have been necessary at all given what has been said today. 

“So I am going to find Ms Shand entitled to her expenses.”