Alex Salmond committee appearance in doubt as Holyrood pulls inquiry dossier

The u-turn from the six MSPs on the SPCB came after the Crown Office wrote to say they had “grave concerns” over the submission from the former first minister.

The document has since been uploaded to the parliament's website again, but with a nuber of redactions.

Salmond's lawyers have demanded to see the legal basis for the changes. They have warned that it could have "a material bearing on whether he is able to attend tomorrow."

They said the Crown's intervention could leave Salmond facing "legal jeopardy."

READ MORE: Crown Office demands Holyrood harassment inquiry remove Alex Salmond submission

In the document - which is Salmond’s submission to the prosecutor led inquiry into whether or not Nicola Sturgeon broke the ministerial code - he accuses his successor of misleading MSPs and flouting strict rules on transparency and accountability.

Salmond has previously tied his appearance to the publication of the document. 

Information redacted or not published cannot be considered by the committee for their final report, which ultimately means it cannot be raised during the evidence session with Salmond or Sturgeon.

Just last week, the SPCB effectively overruled the harassment inquiry, who had twice, by a slim majority, voted against publishing the dossier. 

Parliament’s lawyers had previously advised MSPs on the committee against sharing the document - even though much of it is already in the public domain - over concerns it could lead to the women involved in Salmond’s criminal trial being named, breaching a contempt of court order.

The committee's unwillingness to publish, saw the Spectator magazine going to the High Court, asking for the order to be amended.

While Lady Dorrian agreed to tweak, there were legal arguments over the impact of the change. 

At a crunch meeting of the SPCB last Thursday, they decided that “on balance” it is “possible to publish” the dossier accusing Nicola Sturgeon of breaking the ministerial code.

On Monday, after the document was published, the Crown Office wrote to parliament with their concerns, prompting the u-turn.

In a letter to the committee, Salmond's lawyer, David Mckie from Levy & McRae said the intervention from the Crown came "as a significant surprise and concern, given that clear agreement was reached on publication of our client’s submissions which are now widely reported and in the public domain."

He said Salmond was "alarmed at the interference of the Crown Office in a Parliamentary Inquiry, particularly given Lady Dorrian’s judgment last week in which she clarified her previous Order and which indicated that the publication of submissions were largely matters for the Committee."

"Our client’s submissions took full account of that judgment. Our client’s final submission makes clear his concerns on the role of the Crown office in this matter already."

McKie told the committee: "This is our client’s submission and he is entitled to have it published. If any aspect of it is removed, it compromises his oral evidence.

"We have asked on numerous occasions for assurances on these issues from the committee. After publication of his submissions yesterday we concluded not unreasonably that the issue was resolved, partly to our client’s satisfaction and certainly to allow him to fulfil his oath.

"Your email potentially – and fundamentally - changes that. We therefore require to see URGENTLY the legal basis for the proposed redactions in order that we can properly advise our client and make further representations.

"These could have a material bearing on whether he is able to attend tomorrow. As matters stand, we have advised him that the apparent intervention from the crown suggests that there has to be a material risk to him in speaking to his submission.

"He cannot be placed in legal jeopardy."

The cross-party harassment committee is investigating the Scottish Government’s flawed probe into allegations of misconduct made against Salmond by two civil servants.

He had the exercise set aside in January 2019, with a judicial review declaring it “unlawful” and “tainted by bias”.

The Government’s botched handling ultimately cost the taxpayer half a million pounds.

At a later criminal case, the former SNP leader was cleared on 13 counts of sexual assault.

After the Scottish Government conceded the judicial review, Nicola Sturgeon referred herself to the independent advisers on the Ministerial Code over claims she had broken strict rules when meeting with Salmond about the complaints.

James Hamilton, a former director of public prosecutions in Ireland, has been tasked with investigating the First Minister’s actions.

In his submission to Hamilton, Salmond said the First Minister had repeatedly broken the ministerial code and had misled MSPs about meetings between the two at Sturgeon’s home.

The SNP leader has always denied her predecessor’s claims.

A Crown Office spokesperson said they wouldn't confirm what they may have done about concerns they may have.

They said giving detail could worsen the potential impact of any breach.

Last week's decision to publish provoked an angry response from the SNP and from a number of women who work on the parliamentary estate. 

On Monday, a number of MSPs' staff members took to Twitter urging the SPCB to reconsider.