Salmond inquiry asks to see trial material
THE Holyrood inquiry into the Alex Salmond affair has asked prosecutors for potentially explosive evidence obtained in the run-up to the former first minister’s criminal trial.
The inquiry has asked the Crown Office for any trial material it holds which is also directly relevant to Mr Salmond’s previous civil legal case against the Scottish Government.
The development could lead to the publication of private government and SNP documents, emails, phone and social media messages.
Mr Salmond has claimed that material obtained for his defence – and held by the prosecution – indicated he was the victim of a high-level plot.
However the trial judge refused to let him put it before the jury.
The inquiry’s latest move could now bring it into the open after all.
Mr Salmond was acquitted on 13 counts of sexual assault in March.
He recently revealed he wanted to share some trial material with the inquiry, but was warned by the Crown Office he could be prosecuted for disclosing anything obtained for the preparation of his defence.
However a precedent was set by a Government official last month, who shared material from her phone which the Crown Office had obtained for the trial, without apparent consequences.
Barbara Allison was able to retrieve and share a so-called “smoking text” which Mr Salmond’s supporters claim backs up his conspiracy argument.
The text was sent by Nicola Sturgeon’s top official on the day that Mr Salmond won his civil judicial review case against the Scottish Government on 8 January, 2019.
He had shown a Government probe into sexual misconduct made against him in 2018 had been “tainted by apparent bias”, and he was ultimately awarded £512,000 in costs.
The probe had been overseen by the Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans.
The same day, she texted Ms Allison, the Director of Communications and Ministerial Support, to say: “Battle may be lost but not the war”.
In her oral evidence to the inquiry, Ms Allison denied receiving the text.
However, in what may now prove a hugely significant move, she doublechecked and obtained her deleted message from the Crown Office, then shared it with the inquiry.
In a letter to the Lord Advocate, James Wolffe QC, inquiry convener Linda Fabiani said Ms Allison’s case “demonstrates that there may be material held by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service which is relevant to the Committee’s remit”.
She stressed the inquiry did not want material on the Crown’s decision to prosecute, the “merits” of the allegations or the conduct of the trial.
But did want material the Crown might hold that fell within its remit.
This include “communications between officials related to the conduct of the judicial review and the Scottish Government’s decision to concede” and information about the Government’s misconduct probe.
She asked for a response by Monday. In a separate development, Nicola Sturgeon said the Government may not publish its legal advice for the judicial review despite a clear instruction from Holyrood to do so.
The First Minister said the Scottish Ministerial Code, which she is accused of breaking in a related context, could prevent the advice being disclosed.
She told FMQS that release was not a decision for ministers alone, as the prior consent of the Government’s law officers was needed to waive legal privilege for “compelling reasons”.
Publication without that consent would be “blatantly breaching” the ministerial code, she said.
The lead law officer is the Lord Advocate, who is also being asked by the inquiry for trial material.
MSPS voted 63-54 on Wednesday to demand the Government publish its the advice to assist the inquiry.
After the Government’s defence of the judicial review action collapsed, Ms Sturgeon gave an undertaking to Parliament to “provide whatever material” the inquiry requested.
She said: “My commitment is that the Government and I will co-operate fully with it.”
But her officials and ministers have since tried to block witnesses and withhold evidence, in particular the legal advice on which the Government decided to defend the civil action.
Ministers have cited “legal privilege” for doing so, despite waiving it for three recent judge-led inquiries.
Tory MSP Margaret Mitchell, who sits on the inquiry, asked Ms Sturgeon for the Government’s response to the Holyrood vote and a publication date.
The First Minister said: “If I was to do what Margaret Mitchell has asked me to do there I would be blatantly breaching the ministerial code.”
She quoted the code sections stating “ministers must not divulge the contents of legal advice” although in “exceptional circumstances ministers may decide that he balance of public interest favours disclosure”.
In those circumstances they must obtain the prior consent of law officers before doing so, she explained.
Ms Sturgeon said consent to release legal advice will “only be given if there are compelling reasons”.
The issue of a clash with the ministerial code was raised on Wednesday by Ms Sturgeon’s old friend Shona Robison.
Ms Sturgeon’s official spokesman later refused to say if the Government would even ask the law officers for permission to publish the advice.
Ms Mitchell said later: “All we heard from the First Minister was excuses.
“The integrity of the Parliament is at stake. The committee cannot carry out its remit without the legal advice. If the Government continue to refuse to release it, the public will never know why more than £500,000 of their money was handed to Alex Salmond.”
All we heard from the First Minister was excuses