Scottish Government Ruled in Contempt for Delaying Release of Salmond Inquiry Documents

The Court of Session has determined that the Scottish government acted in contempt of court by intentionally postponing the publication of documents related to the Alex Salmond inquiry. The judicial ruling highlighted that officials did not commence the redaction process until after the Christmas break, a delay that persisted despite an instruction to begin the work on 1 December of the previous year.

The documents, which had been the subject of an extended legal dispute regarding a freedom of information (FOI) request, were finally made public in February. In its verdict, the court reprimanded the administration and mandated that it cover the legal costs incurred by the information commissioner.

The controversy stems from an investigation into whether former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon violated the ministerial code in her management of complaints against her predecessor, Alex Salmond, who passed away in 2024. An independent review conducted by lawyer James Hamilton in 2021 concluded that Sturgeon had not breached the code.

Tensions escalated in January when the information commissioner, David Hamilton, issued a warning on the 16th, demanding the documents be published by the 22nd. This directive followed a finding that the government had improperly withheld the information by citing cost-related reasons. When the government failed to meet this deadline, Hamilton referred the non-compliance to the Court of Session.

In a written judgment, Lady Poole stated that the Scottish government had "deliberately failed" to complete the redactions by the commissioner’s specified date. The judge criticized the administration’s assertion that it would comply "as soon as possible," describing this stance as demonstrating a "lack of respect" for the commissioner’s office. Lady Poole further observed that the government had not offered an apology to the commissioner, nor had it acknowledged its contempt. She concluded that the administration had taken no action to "rectify matters and avoid future repetition."

While Lady Poole’s judgment recognized that the government provided a "partial explanation" for the delays—citing the complexity of existing court orders and the volume of documentation—it also noted that the information commissioner might have allowed a slightly longer timeframe due to the Christmas holidays. However, the court determined that these factors did not justify the extended period before redaction work began, especially given the "significant resources" at the government’s disposal.

The ruling emphasized that failing to exercise its powers in this instance would send an inappropriate message to other public bodies, weaken the commissioner’s authority, and undermine the rule of law. The specific amount of expenses the government must pay was not revealed.

Following the ruling, Hamilton stated that referring the case to the Court of Session was not a decision made "lightly." He remarked, "Failing to comply with my decisions undermines the fundamental principles of FOI and damages the information rights of individuals." He expressed hope that Scottish Ministers would use the ruling to carefully review their broader legal strategy regarding FOI compliance, particularly concerning the James Hamilton Inquiry.

The Scottish government has been approached for a response.

Background to the Legal Dispute

The conflict originated from the James Hamilton probe into alleged breaches of the ministerial code. Following the clearance of Sturgeon, an FOI request was submitted to the Scottish government seeking all written evidence from the investigation. Initially, the government denied the request, arguing that Hamilton, serving as an independent advisor on the ministerial code, fell outside the scope of FOI legislation.

The information commissioner intervened, ordering the government to reconsider its position. The government subsequently challenged this directive in the Court of Session, triggering a prolonged and complex series of appeals.

Prior to these events, Alex Salmond had successfully sued the government in 2019 over its mishandling of harassment complaints against him. He was acquitted of sexually assaulting nine women in 2020. In February, First Minister John S...

Source: BBC News Generated at: 2026-06-03 14:03:43 UTC