Police investigations – Conduct obstructing or calculating to prejudice the due administration of justice.
21 August 2018: Chief Constable Iain Livingstone, and a Detective Chief Superintendent colleague met with Crown Agent Harvie at his request. He told them that the government had referred the complaints about Alex to the Crown Office “for Police investigation of potential criminality” and proposed to give them a copy of the findings of the Government’s internal investigation. The offer was rejected. The police did not view the document. Harvie then advised that the Scottish Government might be making a public statement in relation to the outcome of their investigation and referral of information to Police Scotland. The Chief Constable and his colleague voiced their concerns about a statement being made and said it would compromise any Police investigation. Their advice, which was accepted was that a proactive approach should be adopted in the course of which the force would interview the two complainants and contact other people who held similar roles to the women who had already come forward and identify if there were any other potential complainers.It was agreed that the Police would take matters forward with the rider that there would be no public announcements or any further involvement of any of the Scottish Government team of investigators. The matter was now an active Police investigation.
22 August 2018: Alex, Ms A and Ms B, and Sturgeon were each provided with a copy of Evans, decision report. Alex ‘s legal team wrote very strongly worded letters each to Evans and Sturgeon telling both that the actions they had taken was illegal, contrary to good staff relations and breached every statute of employment Law
23 August 2018: Early afternoon: Evans informed Alex, Ms A and Ms B, and Sturgeon by email that she had forwarded all case documentation to the Lord Advocate’s office for the Police to investigate and would be making a public statement at 1700 hours on the Scottish Government decision report and the police referral. Alex’s Counsel objected strongly stating that Evans actions were unsafe and a breach of protocol and Alex would seek an Interim Interdict preventing the release of information to the public so that the confidentiality of all parties would be maintained.
Faced with an Inteim Interdict Evans decided not to make a public statement. But someone within or very near to her office was alerted to Evans decision not to go public at 1700 hours and at around 1500 hours, in an act determined to obstruct and prejudice the administration of justice, emailed the Editor of the Daily Record a copy of the public statement. The illegal release of the information was considered to be the act of a ” whistleblower” which was not the case and following days of sustained pressure from Alex’s legal team and a half-hearted internal unsuccessful investigation was conducted by the Scottish Government. This is where the Police failed Ms A, Ms B and Alex.
The act of the still unidentified government employee was an illegal “contempt of court” since all matters were the subject of an on-going Police investigation. The Editor of the Daily Record, who has the email which would identify the sender, refused to release it to the Scottish Government. But a police demand for the document would need to be adhered to. Why the Police have not pursued is a puzzle.