What were the key findings of the Hamilton report? James Hamilton, former director of public prosecutions for Ireland, has cleared Nicola Sturgeon of breaking the ministerial code. His findings were in relation to allegations that she failed to record meetings with Alex Salmond to discuss sexual harassment allegations made against him, that she had attempted to intervene in their investigation, that she misled parliament about what she knew and when about the claims, and that she failed to follow legal advice to cede the judicial review of the process brought by Salmond. Did Nicola Sturgeon lie to parliament about when she first heard about sexual harassment allegations against Alex Salmond, thus breaking the ministerial code? No, says Hamilton. Sturgeon claimed that she was first told about the allegations at a meeting on 29 March 2018 at Holyrood with Salmond’s former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein. Sturgeon initially said she had forgotten about this encounter, describing it as “fleeting”, and later in oral evidence insisted it referred to Salmond wanting to discuss a “harassment-type incident”, but that this was “in general terms”. Hamilton says that, while it is “regrettable” that Sturgeon did not mention the 29 March meeting in her statement, he accepts that “this omission was the result of a genuine failure of recollection and was not deliberate” and thus does not amount to a breach of the ministerial code.
He adds that this omission did result in “an incomplete narrative of events” but says that forgetting the meeting “while inevitably likely to be greeted with suspicion, even scepticism by some, is not impossible”. He concludes: “It is for the Scottish parliament to decide whether they were in fact misled.” Was the name of one of the original complainers given to the Salmond camp? Hamilton does suggest one of Sturgeon’s officials breached confidentiality by naming one of the complainers to his former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein at a meeting earlier in March 2018. Hamilton said that four witnesses corroborated Aberdein’s version of events, stating: “I believe that Mr Aberdein’s account of what was said by [the official about] the existence of the complaints and the identity of the complainers is credible.” Later in the report he suggests that the Scottish government should consider extending the provisions of the ministerial code to special advisers, and indeed whether they should also be excluded from sexual harassment investigation process. Did Sturgeon offer to intervene in the harassment inquiry on Salmond’s behalf? Sturgeon has always denied this but admitted in her evidence to the inquiry: “I was trying to let a longstanding friend and colleague down gently and maybe I did it too gently and he left with an impression I did not intend to give.” Evidence from Salmond’s lawyer Duncan Hamilton stated that he had heard Sturgeon assure Salmond at the 2 April meeting that she would intervene, telling him: “If it comes to it, I will.” But Hamilton said the key point was that Sturgeon had not intervened at any point, adding that if Salmond really believed he had secured this commitment “one might have expected him to follow it up and to press home his advantage” – but instead no further contact was made for three weeks. Why did Sturgeon keep talking to Salmond about the case, by phone and in person, after she knew about the allegations? Questions have been raised about why Sturgeon did not record the meetings if they constituted government business. Hamilton did rule that the first meeting – which Sturgeon described as being “in a personal/party space” – “could not in my opinion be characterised as a party meeting”. But he adds that Salmond overstates the significance of whether the meetings were party or otherwise. Later he concluded: “I fully accept the logic of the first minister’s position that it would have been impossible to record such meetings or discussions without a risk of prejudicing the proceedings or interfering with their confidentiality.” Did she press on with defending the judicial review of the harassment inquiry brought by Salmond despite legal advice that it would fail? Sturgeon has always insisted that she was acting in accordance with the views of her law officers, and Hamilton backs this. He says Sturgeon was “fully entitled to rely on [the lord advocate’s] advice” and that the evidence “suggests that the key legal decisions were taken by the law officers”. He adds that Salmond “appears to be under the misapprehension that the government is under a duty to withdraw a case if advised that there is less than an evens chance of winning”. Hamilton explains: “There is no such rule and the prediction of the outcome of cases is not an exact science.” Does the report address Salmond’s central assertion that there was a “malicious plan” among those close to Sturgeon to destroy his reputation? Although it was not within Hamilton’s remit to consider these conspiracy claims, he does say that he accepts Sturgeon’s evidence that at the time the new harassment procedure was adopted “she was not aware of any complaints or impending complaints against Mr Salmond”. The fact that the policy was drawn up to include former ministers was one of the key points offered by Salmond during his own evidence to back up his claims.
What happens next? On Tuesday morning the Holyrood inquiry into the Scottish government’s mishandling of the harassment allegations will publish its own report. Last week, leaks from the inquiry committee revealed it had concluded, by a narrow majority, that Sturgeon misled it by giving an “inaccurate” account of her meetings with Salmond in 2018, albeit unknowingly. Further leaks suggested tomorrow’s report will also conclude it is “hard to believe” she had no knowledge of concerns about Salmond’s behaviour before a media inquiry in November 2017, amounting to a further misleading of the committee. Having a much wider remit, it is also likely to consider the working culture during the time that Salmond was first minister. A vote of no confidence in Sturgeon, called by the Scottish Conservatives, has now moved to Tuesday evening, but Hamilton’s ruling is expected to mean it will fail to win support from other opposition parties. Their leader, Douglas Ross, claimed that the Scottish government had “accelerated” the vote “to avoid MSPs scrutinising that report”.