Woman who accused Alex Salmond of sexual harassment says inquiry is ‘more traumatic’ than the trial
Woman who accused Alex Salmond of sexual harassment says inquiry into Scottish government’s botched probe of complaints against him is ‘more traumatic’ than the High Court trial
- A female complainant said Holyrood investigation is ‘more traumatic’ than trial
- She accused former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond of sexual harassment
- Mr Salmond was accused of attacking nine women but he was acquitted
- He challenged legality of probe, including if Nicola Sturgeon misled parliament
A woman who accused former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond of sexual harassment has found the Holyrood committee’s investigation ‘more traumatic’ than the High Court trial.
The woman, speaking anonymously to the BBC, said the Scottish Government ‘let down’ women who complained because of its unlawful investigation.
But she said the committee inquiry set up to look into the botched investigation of Mr Salmond had turned the issue into a ‘political fight’ and suggested any conclusions it reaches will be ‘utterly useless’.
She also denied claims that there had been a conspiracy to target Mr Salmond and said: ‘It is utterly absurd to suggest that nine women could be persuaded to lie to the police, to perjure themselves in court.’
The accuser, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was one of the women who gave evidence during Mr Salmond’s criminal trial at the High Court in Edinburgh in March 2020.
Mr Salmond was accused of attacking nine women while he was First Minister, but a jury found him not guilty on 12 of the sexual assault charges last year, while another was found ‘not proven’.
The trial ended his friendship with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, with her former ally declaring angrily outside court that the claims he faced were ‘deliberate fabrications for a political purpose’.
Mr Salmond challenged the legality of the Scottish Government’s investigation and it emerged that the government-appointed investigating officer, Judith Mackinnon, had made prior contact with two of the complainants.
The judicial review was eventually conceded by the Scottish Government – meaning the investigation was found to be unlawful – and Mr Salmond received a £512,250 payout for his legal fees.
The woman, speaking anonymously to the BBC, said the Scottish Government ‘let down’ women who complained because of its unlawful investigation
The accuser, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was one of the women who gave evidence during Alex Salmond’s criminal trial at the High Court in Edinburgh in March 2020
Speaking about the Scottish Government’s investigation, which the Court of Session found to be ‘tainted by apparent bias’, the woman told the Sunday Show: ‘It takes a lot of courage to report sexual harassment, particularly against a very powerful person.
‘I think the fact that the Government were willing to investigate those complaints is positive but clearly they let down those women and they have a responsibility to fix that for anybody else in the future.’
Asked about the complaints procedure that was applied unlawfully but remains in place, the woman said: ‘From what I can see it hasn’t been fixed yet and I think the thing that’s really disappointing, particularly through the committee process, is that the fact that committee members have turned this into a political fight has effectively allowed the Government to get away with not being properly scrutinised by members on its procedures.’
The Government has since asked Laura Dunlop QC to conduct a review of the complaints procedure against current and former ministers.
The whole saga has made it ‘much harder for women to be believed and for women to be able to come forward’, the accuser said.
‘I think the committee has strayed so far from its own remit that it has made any of its findings, completely useless.
‘I think that they really had an opportunity to ensure that they could investigate the creation of procedures that would make it safe and easy for women to come forward and they have made it significantly harder.’
Criticising the way the committee has acted, she said: ‘It’s actually, in many ways, more traumatic than the experience of the High Court trial.’
The woman said she hoped the committee could have been ‘impartial’ and would ‘properly investigate the Government’ in order to help eradicate sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace.
‘Instead, what has happened is they have taken your very personal experiences and they have exploited them for their own self-serving political interests, and that in and of itself is something that’s really traumatic,’ she said.
Later during the programme, Convener of the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints, Linda Fabiani, offered a personal apology to the women who have criticised the inquiry’s behaviour.
‘I’m very very sad to hear that, but I understand that,’ the SNP MSP said, after hearing the woman’s remarks.
Ms Fabiani added: ‘I am really sorry that people feel that way, that these women feel that way – absolutely sorry.
‘I can only apologise for myself I can’t apologise for anybody else, that’s up to them.
‘I absolutely apologise for the way that things have gone that makes any complainant feel that we have exploited them.’
A Scottish Government spokesman said: ‘We welcome the opportunity which the parliamentary inquiry and the externally led review bring to address issues which have been raised, and which we have acknowledged.
‘We are committed to a learning process and will ensure that lessons from these proceedings are fully recognised.
‘The Scottish Government continues to support staff and discharge duty of care, including in relation to issues surrounding the Parliamentary committee.
‘A range of support is available for anyone who should need it, and this has been communicated to staff.’
It comes as Mr Salmond asked to appear at the inquiry tearing the SNP apart ‘any day’ next week after The Spectator won a legal battle that could pave the way for the former First Minister to give evidence and make incendiary claims about Ms Sturgeon.
Mr Salmond refused to go to the Holyrood committee on Tuesday after officials refused to publish his submissions that declare war on his successor – but this may change after the magazine’s big win at Edinburgh High Court on Thursday
The toxic feud between Scotland’s First Minister and her predecessor threatens to spiral out of control and wreck her push for IndyRef2 with their battle royale already shaving four per cent off support for Scottish independence in the past month.
Mr Salmond has accused Miss Sturgeon of making ‘untrue’ and ‘untenable’ claims about their 2018 meeting at her Glasgow home where they discussed sexual harassment claims against him.
If proven she lied to the Scottish Parliament, Miss Sturgeon may have breached the ministerial code of conduct and could be forced from office. Mr Salmond’s allies believe she was conspiring against him to cement her position as SNP leader.
Judge Lady Dorrian agreed to amend a ‘loosely worded’ court order imposed after Salmond’s trial where he was cleared of 14 sex attacks after an application by The Spectator and its publisher, Andrew Neil, founder of the new GB News TV channel.
The inquiry committee had claimed the order prevented it from publishing Mr Salmond’s evidence – including a dossier of claims about Miss Sturgeon – and now his lawyers have seized on the magazine’s win and written to MSPs saying that they hope this will allow the evidence to be published and their client to appear within days.
Mr Salmond’s supporters believe he was the victim of a conspiracy orchestrated by Ms Sturgeon to force him out, bolstered by the emergence of a message from her husband to another SNP official where he said it was a ‘good time to be pressurising’ the police over the claims.
Mr Salmond has offered to appear before the inquiry on any day next week and answer questions under oath – if it accepts and publishes a resubmitted version of his evidence.
An emergency meeting will be held today for the committee to consider the court ruling and Mr Salmond’s latest offer.
The former SNP leader was due to appear before the committee on Tuesday.
However, he refused to travel to Holyrood after officials said they would not publish his submission – in which he accused Miss Sturgeon of making ‘untrue’ and ‘untenable’ claims about their meetings in 2018 where they discussed allegations against him.
The inquiry is examining the Scottish Government’s botched handling of harassment complaints that were made against Mr Salmond by two women.
He had that exercise set aside after a successful legal challenge – with officials conceding it had been unlawful and tainted by apparent bias.
Mr Salmond was awarded £512,000 of taxpayers cash in legal fees after it emerged the investigating officer had prior contact with the complainants.
He and Miss Sturgeon are now the only two witnesses yet to appear before the inquiry.
Mr Salmond has been locked in a bitter row over appearing. Earlier this week an inquiry spokesman said he had set conditions it ‘could never meet’ because of court orders in relation to his criminal trial in which he was cleared of 13 charges – including attempted rape.
The Alex Salmond inquiry could fatally damage Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership and dash her hopes of a second independence referendum
Mr Salmond was accused of attacking nine women while he was First Minister, but a jury found him not guilty on 12 of the sexual assault charges, while another was found ‘not proven’
The committee said it would now move on without hearing from him. But The Spectator magazine went to the High Court yesterday asking for the order to be amended to give ‘comfort and clarity’ about what can and cannot be published in relation to the inquiry.
An amendment suggested by the publication’s lawyers was not taken forward, but judge Lady Dorrian suggested another which was accepted by all, including the Crown Office.
The reasons for the change will be published next week. The Spectator’s lawyer said this could ‘be more important than the change’ itself.
Ronald Clancy, QC, who is acting for the magazine, argued the order is having a ‘significant influence’ on how the committee is operating.
Tory spokesman on the inquiry Murdo Fraser said: ‘We have been saying from the outset that our committee will not be able to do its job properly unless we are able to question Alex Salmond in person. While we await the full details of the revised order and what implications it will have, I am satisfied that we now have grounds to compel Salmond to attend.’
Fellow committee member Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour’s interim leader, said: ‘This decision presents the committee with the opportunity to publish the evidence and question Mr Salmond – we must seize that opportunity with both hands.’
A Scottish parliament spokesman said: ‘The committee has agreed to meet to discuss the potential impact on the inquiry once Lady Dorrian’s judgment has been properly considered by the parliament’s legal advisers and those of the former First Minister. The committee notes Mr Salmond’s wish that he attend to give evidence.’
Earlier this week Scottish Tories called for police to probe Ms Sturgeon’s husband over his ‘dismal and shifty’ performance after he was grilled by a Holyrood inquiry about a ‘secret’ meeting she had with Alex Salmond.
Peter Murrell, the SNP’s chief executive, was accused of a ‘masterclass in evasion’ as he was recalled to the inquiry after giving contradictory evidence during his previous appearance before MSPs.
He denied perjury and rejected the idea he was being coached by someone off screen during his Zoom evidence.
The row over Mr Murrell’s evidence centres on a meeting between his wife and Mr Salmond at their Glasgow home on April 2, 2018, which she said was the first time she heard of the sexual harassment complaints made against her predecessor.
But in her submissions to the inquiry, Ms Sturgeon, who will appear in person next week, conceded she had ‘forgotten’ about a meeting with a former aide to Mr Salmond three days prior where it was discussed.
Critics say that shows Ms Sturgeon’s written evidence to MSPs was ‘a pile of nonsense’ – while there are also questions over whether the Court of Session was misled. She has flatly denied being responsible for misleading the authorities.
Despite being the SNP’s chief executive, and husband of the party’s leader, Mr Murrell insists he knew nothing about the talks, what they were about and insists he was out that evening, telling MSPs in December he never talks about government business with his wife.
But Mr Murrell was recalled to the inquiry on Monday morning after giving contradictory evidence during his previous appearance before MSPs in December.
He initially told the committee examining the Scottish Government’s botched and unlawful investigation of Mr Salmond he was not at home when the former first minister told Ms Sturgeon about claims he sexually harassed women. But in a later answer, Mr Murrell revealed he came home while the meeting was taking place on April 2 2018.
During his second appearance before the committee this week, Mr Murrell refused to give a yes or no answer when repeatedly asked if he gave a false statement about the meeting.
In response to committee member Murdo Fraser, who warned that lying under oath can result in a jail sentence of up to five years, Mr Murrell denied he had committed perjury.
Mr Fraser said after the hour-long hearing: ‘Mr Murrell has given false evidence to parliament under oath. He gives the impression that he can say whatever he wants with impunity but in Scotland such actions must surely have consequences. I intend to write to the Crown Office to ask them to investigate the matter.
‘The First Minister lied to parliament and her husband shares the same casual disregard about telling the truth. We had to drag him back to give evidence because of his previous contradictions around key aspects of his and his wife’s actions in relation to the former First Minister.
‘Today’s evidence session was no better. Mr Murrell seems incapable of giving a straight answer. His dismal and shifty performance was a masterclass in evasion’.
Last month SNP ministers were accused of trying to block a deeper investigation into whether Ms Sturgeon misled parliament as her closest ally refused to widen the probe into the Alex Salmond affair.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon with Alex Salmond while on the 2015 General Election campaign trail in Inverurie in the Gordon constituency
A January 21 poll by Savanta ComRes has found 57 per cent of Scots back independence while 43 per cent back staying part of the UK
Deputy First Minister John Swinney has refused to request a ministerial code of conduct probe be widened after Ms Sturgeon’s former mentor, Mr Salmond, accused the First Minister of ‘repeatedly’ misleading parliament.
Tory MSP Murdo Fraser said: ‘The SNP are blatantly trying to block this investigation.’
Labour’s Jackie Baillie said: ‘The political culture in the SNP government is a nauseating cocktail of arrogance, secrecy and incompetence.’
Mr Swinney has refused to widen a probe into whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the ministerial code over the Alex Salmond affair.
The Deputy First Minister has refused to bow to pressure for a wider look at what Ms Sturgeon knew about the allegations against her former mentor.
The First Minister is already being investigated over possible breaches of the code of conduct by failing to disclose meetings with Mr Salmond. The meetings included discussions that Mr Salmond was facing complaints of sexual harassment made against him.
Mr Salmond has claimed the Scottish parliament was ‘repeatedly misled on a number of occasions’ by Ms Sturgeon about a meeting he held with her in April 2018.
Members of the committee holding an inquiry into the handling of the harassment complaints against Mr Salmond have asked for the probe into Ms Sturgeon to include new revelations.
Miss Sturgeon has insisted she did not mislead parliament and hit back at the claims from her predecessor.
She said: ‘These are matters that are under investigation both by a parliamentary committee on inquiry and also by an independent adviser on matters relating to the ministerial code. I will set out my recollection of events and my account of events to both of those inquiries and people will draw their own conclusions.’
She added: ‘I do not consider I misled parliament but, of course, that is for others to judge.’
A Scottish Government spokesman said: ‘The Deputy First Minister already confirmed to parliament in November, in response to a parliamentary question, that the James Hamilton inquiry could look at any aspect of a potential breach of the ministerial code. We will not prejudge that process.’