Legal Threats Over Sturgeon Inquiry Documents
The Scottish government faces potential further legal action from the information commissioner concerning the release of documents related to an ethics investigation into Nicola Sturgeon.
David Hamilton, the information commissioner, stated he could no longer trust the government to manage certain files "unsupervised" after receiving what he described as "preposterous and unacceptable" excuses for failing to comply with his directives.
Ministers have repeatedly missed deadlines to publish correspondence regarding the Sturgeon inquiry, which ultimately cleared her of misleading parliament during a Holyrood investigation into the handling of harassment allegations against Alex Salmond.
In correspondence addressed to Hamilton, the government emphasized that adhering to court orders remains its priority.
The information commissioner is currently handling six separate freedom of information appeals related to the inquiries involving Sturgeon and Salmond.
Following a court battle, the government released a substantial collection of documents last month.
Hamilton's recent criticism follows his request for assurances that ministers complied with a 2024 order to disclose legal advice connected to a previous appeal concerning inquiry evidence.
After reviewing the government's response, the commissioner expressed his belief that compliance had not been met and indicated he was considering legal proceedings.
Commissioner's Statement on Government Conduct
"Perhaps worse than the fact that Scottish ministers have once again failed to comply with one of my decisions, is that they appear to have tried to conceal this breach of trust with unjustified delays and a wall of silence.
"The excuses I have now been given, both in writing and in person, are preposterous and unacceptable."
Hamilton reported that he had conveyed his concerns to Joe Griffin, the Permanent Secretary and Scotland's highest-ranking civil servant.
"I can no longer trust the government to handle this information unsupervised and will explore more intrusive options to ensure compliance."
The commissioner criticized the handling of freedom of information requests related to the Sturgeon inquiry, noting it contrasts sharply with how nearly all other cases are managed.
He further indicated that he would need to evaluate whether additional resources are required to investigate the unusual case handling practices in these matters.
In his letter to Hamilton, Griffin reiterated:
"I would reiterate that ensuring compliance with court orders has been ministers' absolute priority throughout this matter."
The permanent secretary affirmed that he had been assured no information ordered for publication had been withheld and that ministers had fully complied with prior rulings.
Griffin also confirmed that the extensive document bundle released last month was temporarily removed from the government website to allow for the redaction of additional information.
He acknowledged that while regrettable, this situation was attributable to the "scale and complexity" involved in publishing over 700 documents.
Freedom of Information Dispute
First Minister John Swinney previously informed parliament that freedom of information requests were complicated by the necessity to redact details to protect the identities of women who made allegations against Salmond.
Salmond successfully sued the government in 2019 over its mishandling of complaints against him.
The former first minister, who passed away in 2024, was acquitted in 2020 of sexually assaulting nine women.
The freedom of information dispute dates back to March 2021, when James Hamilton, an Irish lawyer, cleared Sturgeon of breaching the ministerial code.
Subsequently, a freedom of information request was submitted to the Scottish government seeking all written evidence used in the investigation.
Initially, the government maintained that because Hamilton served as an independent adviser on the ministerial code, he was not subject to freedom of information legislation.
However, the information commissioner intervened and ordered the government to reconsider the case.
Ministers challenged this decision in the Court of Session, initiating a prolonged series of complex appeals.
