Salmond ‘sexual harassment’ report to remain secret
The former permanent secretary’s report that judged Alex S almond had sexually harassed two Scottish Government officials during his time as first minister is unlikely to ever be made public following a ruling by the Scottish Information Commissioner.
Leslie Evans’ report into allegations of harassment against the former first minister sparked the collapse of the relationship between Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon and almost led to the end of the current SNP leader’s political career.
It was “reduced” by the Court of Session in 2019 following a judicial review brought by Salmond after ministers admitted procedural flaws meant the investigation into the allegations had been “tainted by apparent bias” and was therefore unfair and unlawful.
What followed was two years of a bitter, dramatic parliamentary inquiry into the botched process, including Sturgeon putting her political future in the hands of the independent adviser on the ministerial code.
The First Minister was found by MSPS to have misled Parliament, but was cleared by James Hamilton of the same offence, narrowly surviving.
Salmond was also acquitted of sexual offence charges in a highprofile court case in 2020.
In September 2020, Scotland on Sunday requested the release of any official report resulting from the Scottish Government’s harassment complaints procedure under which the former first minister was investigated.
Ministers initially claimed the report did not exist and were rapped on the knuckles by the Scottish Information Commissioner in May last year, shortly after the 2021 Holyrood election won by the SNP.
The latest ruling follows min↑ A•ex Salmond was acquitted of sexual offence charges isters claiming they could not release the report in any fashion, with or without redactions, due to court orders following the judicial review process.
In a decision notice, commissioner Daren Fitzhenry agreed with submissions from the Scottish Government that disclosing the information would be likely to lead to the identification of the individuals involved, therefore breaching the court order. Fitzhenr y also agreed releasing the report would lead to potential future complainants coming forward under the ministers’ new procedure.
He said: “The commissioner is satisfied, in the circumstances, that disclosure of the information would make it much less likely that those participating in such an investigation, such as complainers and witnesses, would be willing to provide information about concerns, to the substantial prejudice of the authority’s ability to investigate matters concerning the conduct of persons.”
The commissioner also said the public interest in allowing ministers to investigate complaints outweighed the public interest in transparency around the complaints.
He said: “The commissioner also accepts that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that future complainers are not deterred from making complaints of improper conduct and that the authorit y continues to be able to ascertain whether individuals are responsible for improper conduct, albeit under new procedures. It is important, with a view to ensuring high standards of conduct are observed, that the authority is able perform these investigative functions effectively.”