Scotland's highest civil court has upheld an appeal by the Scottish government in a protracted legal dispute over whether documents from an inquiry into Nicola Sturgeon's handling of the Alex Salmond affair must be made public. The ruling shields papers from the Hamilton Inquiry—an investigation into whether the former first minister misled members of the Scottish Parliament during the probe into allegations against her predecessor—from disclosure under freedom of information law.
According to BBC News, the Court of Session found that Information Commissioner David Hamilton had erred in law when he ordered ministers to release the evidence. The Scottish government had resisted publication, arguing that doing so would violate court orders protecting the anonymity of women who made complaints against Salmond. Lord Pentland, writing for the three-judge panel, sided with the government, concluding that disclosure could permit assumptions to be made about the identities of the complainers.
What triggered the legal dispute?
The row stems from a freedom of information request made to the Scottish government for all evidence used in the Hamilton Inquiry. The Information Commissioner ordered disclosure in decisions issued in November and December 2025, but the Scottish government challenged this in court, asking judges to overturn the commissioner's ruling on grounds that releasing the material would place women at risk of identification.
The underlying events date back to 2018, when the Scottish government launched an investigation into Salmond following complaints about his conduct. Salmond successfully challenged the process in court, arguing it was tainted by apparent bias and unlawful. He was subsequently acquitted of sexual assault charges at the High Court in 2020, four years before his death. Following his acquittal, judge Lady Dorrian imposed contempt of court orders prohibiting the naming of the women who had complained about him, and also preventing disclosure of information that could be pieced together to identify them—a concept known as jigsaw identification.
Sturgeon then referred herself for investigation by James Hamilton KC, who ultimately cleared her of breaching the ministerial code. The subsequent Holyrood inquiry examined the botched government probe into Salmond.
How did the court reach its decision?
Lord Pentland cited the case of political blogger Craig Murray, who was jailed for eight months after being found guilty of contempt of court for articles he published online following Salmond's trial. Prosecutors had raised concerns that the complainers could be identified through his writing. Applying what became known as the Murray precedent, Lord Pentland concluded that the Information Commissioner had no basis to order disclosure.
In his written judgment, Lord Pentland stated that the issue of jigsaw identification was clearly in play before the commissioner and that it would be unrealistic and contrary to principle for the court not to apply the law as established in the Murray case. He wrote:
It would be unconscionable for this court to ignore what was authoritatively stated in that case about the meaning and purpose of the various orders pronounced in the civil and criminal proceedings arising out of the investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by Salmond.
According to the Court of Session judgment, the court established that disclosure is barred if it creates a real or substantial risk of identifying a complainer; identification need not be certain, and risk within the complainers' own communities is sufficient grounds for withholding information.
What happens next?
The Information Commissioner's Office responded to the ruling by saying it welcomed the clarity offered by the court decision. A spokesperson stated that Commissioner Hamilton would reflect fully on the implications of the judgment before reassessing the original freedom of information cases. The court judgment provides no scheduled deadline for this reconsideration.
A Scottish government spokesperson said:
The Scottish government welcomes the decision of the Court and will continue to uphold the court orders to protect the identities of women in cases of alleged sexual crimes.
Broader context for the Salmond inquiry saga
This ruling represents another chapter in a lengthy legal saga surrounding the Salmond investigation. In January 2026, the Court of Session had already rejected a separate government appeal over whether ministers held the requested information, finding that the material was held by the Scottish Government for freedom of information purposes. That decision had appeared to strengthen the case for disclosure, but the latest ruling on the substance of the request reverses that trajectory.
The Sturgeon inquiry has been marked by multiple legal challenges and investigations. In July 2026, Police Scotland closed their investigation into senior civil servant James Hynd over allegations of false testimony during the inquiry, with no further action to be taken. Meanwhile, the broader political context has shifted, with former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell charged with embezzlement amid a long-running investigation into party finances, though both Sturgeon and Colin Beattie were cleared of further police inquiry in that matter. In June 2026, the Scottish Parliament rejected a specific inquiry into Murrell's embezzlement, opting instead for a broader review of political party finances.
