Swinney launches court bid to stop release of secret Sturgeon inquiry evidence

John Swinney has launched a court bid to stop the release of previously withheld evidence gathered during an investigation into whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the ministerial code.

Last year, David Hamilton, the Scottish Information Commissioner, said the Scottish Government had wrongly kept some material under wraps and criticised its handling of the case.

He said it was only through the “diligence” of his staff that “failures” were uncovered, branding this “particularly disappointing”, and ordered the release of further documents.

Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney in the Scottish Parliament | PA

But the First Minister has now taken the decision to appeal the watchdog’s ruling, paving the way for another legal battle at the Court of Session. It is just the latest twist in a long-running transparency fight.

READ MORE: Watchdog orders release of withheld Nicola Sturgeon inquiry evidence

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 harassment complaints from two civil servants.

James Hamilton investigated and issued a report in March 2021 in which he determined the former first minister did not breach the code.

Benjamin Harrop, a member of the public, then submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Scottish government asking to be provided with all written evidence gathered by Mr Hamilton during his investigation.

The government initially insisted that as Mr Hamilton was an independent adviser on the ministerial code, he was not subject to FOI legislation.

However, the Information Commissioner intervened, ordering the government to look at the case again. While ministers challenged this decision in the Court of Session, their appeal was refused.

In the wake of this, some information was supplied in January 2024, but the government withheld further details, citing various exemptions under FOI laws.

In a ruling in November, David Hamilton said that while some information was appropriately withheld, other material should be disclosed. He said the government had failed to accurately interpret the scope of the request for information.

He also criticised the government for “failing to disclose some information which fell within the scope of the applicant’s request and which it did not specifically identify as being exempt from disclosure”.

Mr Hamilton said the government had been “wrongly withholding some information under the exemptions”. He ordered the disclosure of further material by January 12.

A spokesman for the Scottish government said it believed Mr Hamilton “erred in relation to the law on whether the information can be withheld because it risks breaching contempt of court orders”.

“The Scottish Government cannot release information which would amount to a contempt of court,” he said. “It would otherwise not be appropriate to comment on what is now live litigation.”

Mr Salmond was cleared of multiple charges of sexual assault following a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh in 2020.