Jump to content

 

 

Crown Office Gagging for It


Recommended Posts

Alex Salmond inquiry: Senior lawyers condemn ‘state censors’ in Crown Office

Magnus Linklater

Friday April 09 2021, 5.00pm, The Times

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmond-inquiry-senior-lawyers-condemn-state-censors-in-crown-office-cfzjd9f6s

 

Scottish prosecutors abused their powers and behaved as if they were government censors during the Alex Salmond inquiry, according to a group of senior lawyers.

 

Retired senators, sheriffs and advocates signed an article condemning how the Crown Office used contempt of court orders to prevent publication of evidence requested by MSPs during the Holyrood inquiry into the handling of complaints against Salmond.

By claiming to be protecting the identity of witnesses, the Crown Office effectively censored information that should have been public, the group said in an article for Scottish Legal News called “Who will watch the watchmen?”.

 

The lawyers expressed incredulity at the fact that the lord advocate, James Wolffe QC, who heads the Crown Office, told parliament that he was not consulted about the intervention. This, Wolffe said, was made on the advice of “experienced lawyers”.

The group of lawyers, who call themselves Quis, added: “Some might reasonably ask if what has been going on has remarkable similarities to the English ‘superinjunctions’, where you can’t even publicise the fact that the injunction exists, and some might also reasonably ask if this is quite simply ‘bullying’ tactics in order to achieve the Crown Office objective of removal of material which [it] asserts is necessary for protecting identities.”

 

The group was scathing about the way the Crown Office sought to prevent the Spectator magazine from continuing to publish material which had already been in the public domain. “The Spectator was not only ‘requested’ to remove what we assume was the same material by the same Crown Office lawyers, it was also instructed by them not to publicise the fact that they had been ‘requested’ to remove material,” it said.

“When did the Crown Office, our state prosecutors, become our state censors? When did Crown Office get the power to tell anybody to keep their correspondence secret?”

 

Quis pointed to the growth in the number of contempt of court orders in Scotland, which are normally used to protect the identity of witnesses and victims of crime. “[They] were once a relatively unusual feature of our legal landscape,” it wrote. “No more. At the last count there were more than 400 such orders currently in force in Scotland alone.”

In a recent high profile contempt of court prosecution, “50 per cent of the material alleged by the Crown to amount to contempt was found by the court not to be a breach of the court order,” the group wrote.

 

It said it was time for the Crown Office’s policing role to be “brought under some form of oversight . . . It should not simply be a matter for somebody in Crown Office to fire off their ‘concerns’, to remind the recipient of the enormous penalties and to suggest that the publication in question should be edited to reflect the Crown Office view. That is not tolerable in a free society with a free press.”

The Crown Office has been approached for comment.

Edited by Uilleam
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Uilleam changed the title to Crown Office Gagging for It

The Scottish Legal News:

Douglas J Cusine comments on Salmond.

 

What a difference a letter makes, or this would be on the recipe pages

 

Douglas J. Cusine: Questions around the Salmond redactions

Published 9 April 2021

Former sheriff and member of Quis, Douglas J. Cusine, raises further questions the group has about the Salmond inquiry and the role of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body.

 

https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/douglas-j-cusine-questions-around-the-salmond-redactions

 

There is a saying, “The Devil finds work for idle hands to do.” The

“Devil” in this case is Covid-19 which has required many of us to not be out and about as we did. Had we not been subject to the strictures associated therewith, we would probably not have paid the same attention to some issues. Being idle, from time to time, we looked at the remit of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body (SPCB). For those of you who may never have heard of this body, we too were unaware of its existence until the setting-up of the committee charged with inquiring into the handling of harassment claims against the former first minister, Alex Salmond.

SPCB is a creature of the Scotland Act 1998 and it is dealt with in section 21 and Schedule 2. Section 21 sets out the membership of the board, including providing that the presiding officer is the chair, and there are five others, but for present purposes, subsection (3) is relevant:

“The corporation shall provide the Parliament, or ensure that the Parliament is provided, with the property, staff and services required for the Parliament’s purposes.” Its powers are set out in Schedule 2 and for convenience, and to avoid any misrepresentation or misunderstanding which could arise from selective quotation, we set these out in full.

“Powers
4. (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), the corporation may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of or in connection with the discharge of its functions. [as set out in s. 21]
(2) That includes, in particular—(a) entering into contracts,(b) charging for goods or services,(c) investing sums not immediately required in relation to the discharge of its functions, and(d) accepting gifts.
(3)The corporation may sell goods or provide services, and may make arrangements for the sale of goods or provision of services, to the public.
(4)The corporation may borrow sums in sterling by way of overdraft or otherwise for the purpose of meeting a temporary excess of expenditure over sums otherwise available to meet that expenditure.
(5)The corporation may borrow money only under sub-paragraph (4) and may borrow under that sub-paragraph only in accordance with the special or general approval of the Parliament.”

An important question is where in these stated powers does one find anything about handling evidence to be submitted to the Parliament, its standing committees, or a committee such as the ‘Harassment Committee’.

If you are struggling, so too are we.

This is not a theoretical question, because in the course of the committee’s deliberations, it was disclosed that following a ‘suggestion’ by the Crown Office, the SPCB redacted some of the former first minister’s evidence. (We observe, in passing that parts of the report by James Hamilton QC are also redacted, and that was not done by him: of which, more below) It is obvious that the ‘Salmond redactions’ were done without any consultation with him, because it was touch-and-go whether he would appear in person to give evidence as a result of this.

As far as we can see, neither s.21 nor Sch.2 has been amended to include this power. It is a power so different from the others that one could not infer its existence from a consideration of the stated powers. On 23 February, Miles Briggs MSP asked about the rationale for the redaction (S5W-35498): the response was along the lines of “to protect the identity of the complainers”. That came from David Stewart MSP who is responsible in SPCB for ”facilities”, and not from Jackson Carlaw MSP who is responsible for “governance” which includes “legal services”.

The questions which arise are these:

How did the written submission of the former first minister come into the possession of the SPCB?

How did the CO know that the SPCB had his submission?

Did SPCB tell the CO, and if so, why?

Who made the decision about what should be redacted? Why the CO took it upon itself to interact with the SPCB is a bigger issue and not one for this article.

There may be a simple answer to some of this. The SPCB may not normally be the body which photocopies material for the Parliament or its committees, but may, of course, in a general way, oversee such operations, e.g. to ensure that resources are not improperly used. Given the sensitive nature of some parts of the former first minister’s written submission, there may be nothing sinister in its being handled by the SPCB and there is a part of SPCB which is described as “egal services”. Having got the submission, one can understand why SPCB responded to a request (if that is what it was) from the CO to redact certain parts. If that is the explanation, the SPCB would not have been acting beyond its powers, and even if in theory, it did so act, that was justifiable. It seems highly improbable that a presiding officer would be a party to an administrative body, which SPCB is, subverting the operation of Parliament or its committees.

Having said all that, a question still hangs over the involvement of the CO in that redaction, but a further question remains: who gave the instruction to redact parts of the Hamilton Report, the result of which, in my view, renders some of it unintelligible? Some of the redactions may relate to the identity of the complainers; other parts certainly do not.

The CO might possibly have had a hand in the first redactions, if its concerns were limited to ensuring that the complainers’ identities were not ascertainable. One assumes that the CO had no hand in the other redactions. How to find out? The answers could, in theory, be obtained by a “freedom of information” request, but it is well known that any organisation which does not wish to comply will find an excuse, however implausible, not to comply.

Judicial review is, of course, open, but it is an expensive process and there is no guarantee of success. We may, therefore, never know how this came about, and, if so, that is unacceptable. Someone produces material for the Parliament, or one of its committees, but has no control over the form in which that material will ultimately be presented.

What’s going on, or quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.