Claims of Crown interference with Salmond committee ‘wholly without foundation’, says Lord Advocate

Accusations that the Crown Office had interfered with the committee investigating the Scottish Government’s handling of harassment complaints are “wholly without foundation”, the Lord Advocate has said.

Providing evidence to the committee on Tuesday morning, James Wolffe said the Crown had approached the parliament about the publication of a submission from Alex Salmond after concerns had been raised by complainants.

He said it was the parliament’s decision to remove and redact parts of that submission, but it was “right” to do so.

But he insisted any suggestion the Crown was seeking to limit the committee in its inquiry was “incorrect”.

He said: “The Crown will seek to protect the administration of justice by advising publishers, including, if necessary, the parliamentary authorities, if it considers that a publication would breach the [court] order. But only the court can decide whether any particular publication is contempt and it is for publishers to decide for themselves what they can lawfully publish.

“Last week, following an intervention by the Crown, the parliamentary authorities decided to redact certain evidence provided by Mr Salmond. That was their decision and they were right to take it.”

Asked about the unredacted submission still being available via The Spectator, the Lord Advocate said it was for other outlets to make their own decisions about what they publish.

He added the Crown “cannot, does not and could not proactively police all media outlets” and only raised concerns with parliament after it had seen what had been published.

The committee is investigating the circumstances which led to the government’s handling of harassment complaints against the former first minister being ruled “unlawful” and the subsequent payment of over £500,000 in legal fees.

Last week it heard from Salmond in person, who among a series of other allegations suggested the government had considered sisting (pausing) the civil case, with some people hoping the “criminal case would ride to the rescue, like the cavalry over the hill, and that somehow the civil case would never be heard”.

The Lord Advocate told the committee the government had considered sisting at the outset of the judicial review process, but only as part of steps which could be taking to avoid any risk of impacting the criminal case.

Regarding the legal advice given to the government on the civil case – which is to be provided to the committee this week following a U-turn by deputy first minister John Swinney – Wolffe also confirmed the law officers had only been approached yesterday about the release of that legal advice.

He explained that the two-part process on waiving legal privilege meant ministers first decided whether public interest was in favour of disclosure. After the two parliamentary votes on the matter, ministers had initially decided not to disclose the advice, but had since reconsidered that choice and the law officers had be approached for consent on Monday.