QC’s frustration over redactions that prevent full publication
THe lawyer who cleared Nicola Sturgeon of breaching the ministerial code said he had been left ‘deeply frustrated’ by redactions he was forced to make to his report.
James Hamilton, Qc, warned it meant the report cannot be ‘properly understood’ and it could present an ‘incomplete’ and ‘misleading’ version of events.
in a letter released alongside his inquiry conclusions, Mr Hamilton voiced his frustration over a court order which protects the identity of some of those involved.
Mr Hamilton said that ‘certain particular individuals’ could not be identified even though they had a ‘significant role in certain events’ – with their job titles also redacted.
in the letter, Mr Hamilton said that he had not redacted anything he believed to be relevant to his remit but that he understood ‘in order to comply with certain court orders it will be necessary to make redactions to the enclosed report before publication’.
He added: ‘This is so as to avoid the phe
‘Incomplete’ version of events
nomenon known as jigsaw identification’. Mr Hamilton states that the letter must be published along with his report to inform readers of the redactions, as well as seeking assurances that the redactions are properly marked out.
He warned: ‘in earlier drafts of the report i attempted to anonymise certain individuals in such cases but these attempts were not successful. it is therefore impossible to give an accurate description of some of the relevant events dealt with in the report while at the same time complying with court orders.
‘i am deeply frustrated that applicable court orders will have the effect of preventing the full publication of a report which fulfils my remit and which i believe it would be in the public interest to publish.’
Mr Hamilton specifically pointed towards events prior to March 29, 2018, which he said are ‘highly significant for understanding who was aware of complaints made against alex Salmond and what they did with that information’.
However, he conceded he understood that ‘as the law now stands there appears to be no alternative approach which would allow my unredacted report to be published’.
Mr Hamilton added: ‘For that reason i have reluctantly accepted that a redacted report should be published in order to bring this process to a close.’
Meanwhile, it was revealed government chiefs are set to investigate allegations a senior official leaked the name of a woman who made a harassment complaint against Mr Salmond to his former aide.
The First Minister yesterday confirmed a formal complaint had been received after Mr Hamilton concluded the claim was ‘credible’.
alex Salmond has alleged that the name of a complainant was leaked to his former chief of staff Geoff aberdein ahead of his meeting with Miss Sturgeon on March 29, 2018.
The identity of the woman, according to Mr aberdein, was given to him by a senior Scottish Government official. in evidence to the Holyrood inquiry, two others – Duncan Hamilton and Kevin Pringle – both confirmed that Mr aberdein told them immediately of the leak.
But giving evidence under oath at Holyrood, Miss Sturgeon said: ‘The account that i have been given has given me assurance that what is alleged to have happened at that meeting did not happen in the way that has been described.’
Speaking at First Minister’s Questions following her appearance at the committee, Miss Sturgeon added: ‘To the very best of my knowledge, i do not think that happened.’
However, Mr Hamilton’s report yesterday concluded that Mr aberdein’s allegation is ‘credible’.
Speaking after its publication, Miss Sturgeon said that a complaint had been made over the issue – and signalled an investigation would follow.
Responding to the BBc, Miss Sturgeon said: ‘as i understand there is a complaint that has been made about that, which we’ll be taking forward in the proper way.’
Mr Hamilton’s report also concluded that if it is a matter of comparing Mr aberdein’s and the official’s accounts, Mr aberdein’s is ‘more straightforward’ than the other ‘rather complicated account’.