Exclusive:SNP ministers spent £30k in court battle to withhold Nicola Sturgeon inquiry evidence

The cost was revealed following a freedom of information request by The Scotsman

SNP ministers spent £30,000 fighting a doomed court battle to keep evidence gathered during an investigation into whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the ministerial code under wraps.

The Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled against the Scottish Government last month, after ministers initially said they did not hold the evidence in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by Benjamin Harrop, a member of the public.

This was challenged by the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC). In a highly unusual move, ministers had appealed against its ruling. However, the judges sided with the SIC.

Nicola Sturgeon. Picture: Jane Barlow/pool/Getty Images

An FOI request by The Scotsman found the Scottish Government spent £25,000 on the legal challenge, plus £5,000 in VAT. The costs related “to the securing of external legal advice and representation in court from external counsel”, it said.

The SIC ruled in January last year that ministers were wrong to state the information requested by Mr Harrop was not “held” by them and instructed them to carry out a review of their response.

Ms Sturgeon referred herself to independent adviser James Hamilton in 2019 over concerns she failed to record meetings and phone calls she had with her predecessor Alex Salmond and his former chief of staff after he was the subject of complaints from two civil servants.

Mr Hamilton investigated and issued a report in March 2021 in which he determined Ms Sturgeon did not breach the code. Mr Harrop asked Scottish ministers two weeks later to be provided with all written evidence gathered by Mr Hamilton during his investigation.

They declined to hand over the information on two occasions, prompting Mr Harrop to seek a review by the SIC. Ministers then appealed against the SIC’s ruling that there ought to be a review of their initial responses, arguing the commissioner took “too technical” an approach to the word “held”.

They also argued any disclosure of the written evidence would be detrimental to Mr Hamilton’s independence as an adviser.

James Mure KC, acting for the Scottish Government, told the court it stored information gathered by Mr Hamilton “purely on his behalf” and only his final report was ever meant to be published.

But in a ruling on December 6, judge Lord Carloway said the court was satisfied “that the information involved was held by the Scottish ministers in terms of the statute, and we will therefore refuse this appeal”.

He said: “Obviously, the Scottish ministers will wish to consider whether any exemptions apply to any of the information which is subsequently made available.”

Tory MSP Murdo Fraser criticised the spending. He said: “The SNP Government seems to have an inexhaustible appetite for squandering taxpayers’ money on court cases that they almost always lose.

“This challenge to the Information Commissioner was a particularly obvious waste of time and money, since they could simply have put aside their habitual secrecy and avoidance of accountability, and come clean with the public in the first place.”