News

Letter To The Presiding Officer + Linda Fabiani MSP

Ken Macintosh MSP

Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament

and

Linda Fabiani MSP

Convenor Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints

18/02/2021

I note the decision today by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body that it is possible to publish Alex Salmond’s submission to the Inquiry.

I write to seek urgent reassurances that Parliament intends to uphold the contempt of court order which is in place to protect the anonymity of complainers from the criminal trial.

We are extremely concerned that this decision is being taken without the legal basis to do so. Lady Dorrian’s slight variation of the order following the Spectator challenge made no difference to the meaning of the order, as I am sure your own legal advice has confirmed.

I cannot stress how important it is that the Parliament fulfils its obligations in respect of not identifying – either directly or in combination with other documents in the public domain – complainers from the criminal trial.

The treatment of the complainers from the trial has been intolerable, particularly online. They have been hounded, identified online and had threats made against them. I am clear that if the Parliament publishes anything which could lead to the identification of any of the complainers you will be directly responsible for putting their safety at risk.

There has been a widespread misinterpretation of the verdict of the criminal trial as meaning that the women made up their allegations. This is inaccurate and dangerous. In reality what the not guilty and not proven verdicts meant – as is the case in all criminal trials – is that the jury did not consider that the Crown had proven the case beyond reasonable doubt.

This is serious and important in itself, but you should also be aware that many women are watching how the Parliament is handling this case, including women who work for the Parliament, and getting a clear message about how they might be treated should they ever consider making a report of sexual harassment, particularly if this report is against someone in a position of power or influence.

The inquiry should have been an opportunity to hold the Scottish Government to account and consider how to improve responses to sexual harassment complaints. There is a grave danger that instead the actions of this Parliament and its politicians are not only endangering women who have already been let down multiple times but making it much harder for women to ever feel able to report sexual harassment in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Sandy Brindley

Chief Executive

Statement on the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints

Below is a statement from the women whose personal and private messages were requested by the Scottish Parliament’s “Salmond Committee” and were handed to the Committee by the Crown Office as part of a Section 23 Order for messages belonging to Sue Ruddick.

In light of the decision taken by the Committee not to publish the messages received from the Crown Office under the Section 23 Order, we feel it is important that our voices are heard, where so far they have been secondary to the Committee’s inquiry.

We are deeply disappointed that the Committee saw fit to request messages between people identified by the Police and the Crown as victims of sexual harassment, some of whose identities are protected by a court order. We have no doubt that members of the Committee knew that vulnerable witnesses were involved when they made the request.

We are also deeply disturbed that the Crown has felt it appropriate to break the trust we placed in it. Having been let down by the Crown Office, we feel this unnecessary act will have done serious damage to progress made over the last few years in sexual assault cases. We urge the Crown to consider the grave consequences of their actions, and are actively considering further options.

Not a single one of these messages relates to the remit of the Committee or the Committee’s published approach to the inquiry. In short, what the Crown provided are personal communications between friends who supported each other during a traumatic time. Comments made by members of the committee, passing judgement on the motivations of women, describing women’s communications as “fair game” and raising questions as to the genuine nature of the complaints made, have caused considerable distress since the Order was placed and do a disservice to all women who have made complaints of this nature.

Each individual in the messages requested by the Committee experienced behaviour from Alex Salmond that was unacceptable and which either Police Scotland or the Crown Office considered potentially criminal.

A group chat, about which there has been much speculation, was simply a support group for women who had already shared their experiences with the Police. The selective quoting of messages by people with whom they should not have been shared has led to increasing pressure on the women involved.

These messages, had they been published, would show clearly that there was no conspiracy between women, but bonds of friendship and support.

There is no manual as to what happens to you when you speak to the Police and they inform you that the actions you describe could be criminal. There’s no handbook that sets out whether or how you’ll be protected, what your rights are and what happens to your identity. There’s no immediate offer of support from a third party, someone who can help guide you through the process. That simply isn’t there. So you turn to your friends and colleagues for support.

And when the person you have been asked by Police Scotland to give evidence about is someone who was and is a hugely powerful figure, there is comfort in knowing that you are not the only one going through that experience, you find support in solidarity.

It is impossible to counter claims of conspiracy by those who selectively choose messages, without any context. These are private and personal communications which should not need to be in the public domain to prove a theory false or for complainers to be believed.

That we work in politics should not prevent us from speaking honestly and truthfully to the Police or to each other, in fact it should compel us to do so, to live up to the values we believe in.

We firmly believe that the Committee’s determination to gain sight of and publish these personal messages is yet another example of the behaviour that led Rape Crisis Scotland to write on behalf of the two complainers in the government investigation into Mr Salmond that;

“They are deeply disappointed that the Committee continues to be insensitive to the fact that they are real people on the other side of this, and they are distressed that their painful personal experiences are being exploited for political purposes through the Committee’s inquiry."

Publication and discussion of private messages is a complete invasion of privacy and has already led to further distress, not only to us, but also to the other women involved in complaints against Mr Salmond, and those we turned to for support.

The bullying and intimidation of complainers through use of their private and personal communications must end now.

Forensic Medical Examination Statement and Social Media Break

We are delighted that the Forensic Medical Services Bill has passed its third and final stage.

For many years we have been making the case for improved responses to survivors of rape and sexual assault, forensic and otherwise. Survivors deserve to be treated with compassion and dignity without exception and should be able to expect consistent communication.

Introducing self-referral in Scotland is a vital step towards ensuring survivors have as much control over their own experience as possible. No-one should ever be pressured or coerced into reporting sexual violence and having the ability to capture and safely store potential evidence without having to commit to reporting is necessary and important.

We are proud to have worked alongside the Survivor Reference Group in shaping this Bill and we are grateful to them for their work. Members give their time because they want organisations and institutions to learn from their experiences. They rightly want make sure that other survivors are able to expect compassion and best practice from the institutions that are supposed to protect all of us.

We share and echo the concerns voiced by multiple MSPs and individuals about the lack of female doctors; we must be clear that the amendment accepted will not change this. The right to request a female examiner is all very well, but until there are enough female examiners available across Scotland the ability to access one is a matter of location and chance. This is not good enough; work to prioritise recruitment of female examiners has to be an urgent priority.

In recent days we have been subject to an onslaught of abuse on social media, that has been very, very difficult. There is a clear difference between criticism of a policy position and the sort of intimidation, harassment and vitriol that we have been subject to. To protect staff wellbeing we will be taking a break from social media until further notice.

If you are looking for support, our helpline is open as normal from 6pm - midnight every night:

Call: 08088 01 03 02

Email: support@rapecrisisscotland.org.uk

Text: 07537 410 027

Faculty of Advocate Investigation: 'boys club' accused of closing ranks to protect their own

Timeline:

• March 29^th 2020: Video released of Jackson seen to be discussing case details, calling Alex Salmond a ‘bully’ and a ‘sex pest’ and naming complainers in high profile sexual offences trial. Jackson is recorded stating that “all I need to do is put a smell on her” in relation to one of the complainers.
• March 30^th 2020: Jackson refers himself to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) following the publication of the footage
• April 2^nd 2020: Rape Crisis Scotland make complaint on behalf of complainers to the SLCC
• April 3^rd 2020: Jackson announces that he will resign as Dean of the Faculty with effect from the 30^thJune, and earlier if the SLCC refers the complaint about him to the Faculty
• August 10^th 2020: SLCC (after four months) assess that there was sufficient merit to the complaint for it to be referred for investigation by the Faculty of Advocates on two of the three complaints
• August 20^th 2020 Rape Crisis Scotland write to SLCC to express disappointment at length of time taken to reach decision and decision not to uphold assertion that Jackson saying “all I need to do is put a smell on her” undermines confidence in the Faculty of Advocates
• September 2^nd 2020: Faculty confirms correspondence from SLCC received and gives Rape Crisis Scotland 14 days to submit additional material
• September 4^th 2020: Faculty communicate that Jackson has requested an extension, new deadline of 2^nd October 2020
• September 25^th 2020: Faculty communicate Jackson has requested another extension, new deadline of 30^th October 2020.
• October 16^th 2020: Faculty communicate Jackson’s request for extension, new deadline of 27^th November 2020.
• 24^th November 2020: Faculty communicate Jackson has requested yet another extension, deadline new deadline 18^th December 2020.

Sandy Brindley, Chief Executive of Rape Crisis Scotland said:

“It’s hard to see this latest move by the Faculty as anything other than a boy’s club closing ranks to protect one of their own. Gordon Jackson’s behaviour in the aftermath of the Salmond trial was completely inappropriate and unprofessional. At the time he made these comments, he was the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. It is unacceptable that over 8 months later he has still faced absolutely no sanction for recklessly and publicly naming two complainers, whose anonymity was protected by a court order, and talking about details of the case on public transport.

Gordon Jackson is a powerful public figure, he is a QC, the former Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and has a legal team representing him in this process. The ten women from the case have no legal representation, with representations being made by Rape Crisis Scotland. This feels like an imbalance that Jackson is using to his advantage to delay the process.

The Faculty of Advocates have a huge role to play in upholding law in Scotland but they are not above it. Like all of us, Jackson must be held accountable for his actions. You’d be forgiven for thinking that Jackson is being allowed to pull the strings in his own investigation, fobbing it off until he is able to retire in peace. This is unacceptable, and in our view undermines public confidence in the Faculty of Advocates."

Read: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/rape-crisis-charity-accuses-alex-23112800