Censorship and Scotland's Crown Office

If recent events are anything to go by, Scotland's Crown Office is our answer to the Keystone Cops.

COPFS (Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service), to use its full title, has demanded further 'redactions' to evidence submitted to the 'Salmond inquiry' for reasons which have not been explained, publicly at least, and appear to make little sense.

Alex Salmond's own evidence has been censored and the following paragraphs have been removed entirely from his original submission on the Ministerial Code:

Paragraph 12 

Refers to the build-up to the first meeting between Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon on 2 April 2018 - but says nothing about the identity of the complainers

Paragraph 13

Also refers to the build-up to the first meeting between Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon on 2 April 2018 - but says nothing about the identity of the complainers

Paragraph 16 

Refers to the procedure being adopted by Ministers/officials to investigate complaints - but says nothing about the identity of the complainers

Paragraph 17 

Refers again to the build-up to the meeting on 2 April and a prior meeting on 29 March 2018 in the Scottish Parliament with Nicola Sturgeon - but says nothing about the identity of the complainers

Paragraph 30  (in two parts)  

Refers to the meeting held in the Sturgeon/Murrell private home on 2 April and accuses the First Minster of breaching the Ministerial Code - but says nothing about the identity fo the complainers (Part 1)

Refers to the previous meeting on 29 March with Nicola Sturgeon which the First Minister claimed to have forgotten about - but says nothing about the identity of the complainers. (Part 2)

Now the reported purpose of the redactions demanded by the COPFS is to protect the identity of the complainers, but the censored paragraphs do not identify the complainers which makes the whole business seem rather ridiculous.

An explanation from COPFS would help clear up the mystery, but the Crown Office is none too hot at clearing up mysteries, as can be seen by its malicious prosecution of the administrators acting on behalf of Rangers Football Club - see post below dated 16 February 2021. 

 

No Fault, No Blame and No Records (16/02/21)

Alex Massie pokes fun at the latest Scottish Government scandal while making a very serious point - how can fault be admitted and yet no one be at fault? 

"Remarkably, if revealingly, lawyers for Whitehouse and Clark have claimed that meetings to discuss the case chaired by Mulholland went unminuted. Or, at the very least, any minutes have not been released. If so, if confirmed, that is worth more than a raised eyebrow. Once again, where is the accountability and how could anyone sensibly think that a prudent basis upon which to proceed?"

Apparently the costs of this catastrophic failure are likely to rise towards £100 million which is an eye-watering sum of public money - with not a thing to show for such enormous expense.

£100 million would pay for a large chunk of Glasgow's outstanding equal pay bill, for example, but yet again there is zero accountability from public officials and their political masters despite their hugely costly 'mistake'.  

The other shocking aspect of this malicious prosecution is that yet again there appears to be no proper written record of crucial meetings - something which has come back to haunt the First Minister and the Scottish Government during the Salmond inquiry. 

 

Siri, Define 'Criminal' (10/02/21)

Scotland's Lord Advocate (a member of Nicola Sturgeon's cabinet) admits a Crown Office prosecution was malicious forcing the public purse to pay out £24 million in damages and costs.

Yet no 'criminality' was found, so they say, but how can that be - do they think we're all daft?

Because the definition of malicious is 'characterised by malice or intended to do harm'.