Holyrood inquiry ‘unlawful and tainted by bias’
A JUDGE slammed the Scottish Government’s “tainted” probe into sex claims against Alex Salmond yesterday as the former first minister won his legal battle.
Salmond had taken the Government to court over the way they handled their inquiry into accusations over his behaviour during his time in office.
And yesterday, judge Lord Pentland ruled the Government had acted unlawfully, adding their actions had been “tainted with apparent bias”.
Earlier, the Government’s lawyer, Roddy Dunlop QC, had conceded their own guidelines had been breached by the appointment of an investigating officer who had “prior involvement” in the case.
HR official Judith Mackinnon had met with the two women alleging inappropriate behaviour by Salmond to hear their claims before the official probe was launched.
Mackinnon was then appointed to carry out the probe, with Salmond’s lawyer suggesting she may have encouraged the alleged victims to make formal complaints.
Salmond and his legal team had brought the civil case to court as a judicial review, attacking the fairness of the Government’s procedures.
A four-day hearing on the matter was due to be held next week. Speaking outside the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Salmond said: “I’m obviously glad – delighted – by the result today. The Government have made an abject surrender in terms of the case before we even got to the first day of hearings. I’m just sad it was necessary to take this action in this court to prove that point.”
Asked if he was “entirely innocent” of any claims of misconduct, Salmond said: “I am certainly not guilty of any criminality.
“I am certainly not guilty of what the Permanent Secretary (Leslie Evans) has suggested. I never said, incidentally, I was an angel.”
Salmond estimated the Government had spent £500,000 of taxpayers’ money on the legal fight.
During the hearing, Dunlop said a failing in “one aspect” of the investigation could give the impression it was not impartial. He said: “That failure relates to the involvement of the investigating officer. I must state the investigating officer is a dedicated HR professional, particularly selected for the very reason that she was not employed by the Scottish Government at the time of the alleged incidents. There is no suggestion that she did anything other than act throughout in good faith.”
Dunlop accepted there were meetings between Mackinnon and the complainers before her appointment. But there was no evidence the investigating officer was “not impartial”, he said, while the investigation had been “fair and robust” and the Government considered the two complainers “credible and reliable”.
He added: “However impartial the investigating officer did in fact act, the process did not, in light of the interactions, meet the requisite standard.”
The lawyer said there was “institutional responsibility” for this failure and no individual was being blamed.
The investigating officer was charged with the “impartial collecting of the facts” and preparing a report for the Permanent Secretary, the court heard.
Ronnie Clancy QC, representing Salmond,
ALEX SALMOND OUTSIDE COURT OF SESSION
said: “Prior to her appointment, there was a significant amount of direct personal contact between the investigating officer and the complainers.”
He said Mackinnon met with “Miss A” in December 2017, approximately two weeks after the complainer gave a detailed statement regarding her allegations to a civil servant and before an investigation was launched.
Clancy said Mackinnon was “designated a point of contact” for both “Miss A” and the second complainer, “Miss B”, before being made investigating officer.
Under Government rules, he said the investigating officer “should have had no previous involvement in any aspect of the matter being raised”. He branded the resulting inquiry “illegal and unlawful”.
Referring to notes made by Mackinnon last January, Clancy suggested she had “strayed into the realms” of giving the two women “encouragement” to make formal complaints against Salmond.