Read on Twitter
Thank you for this helpful clarification. However it raises a further issue which I hope COPFS will also be able to clear up. This is the question of whether we are entitled to discuss actions of people who may have been or were complainers outwith their role as complainers. https://twitter.com/COPFS/status/1360670942549131275
Here is a practical example. I am not party to any inside information so I don't know if the First Minister's (NS) Chief of Staff, Liz Lloyd (LL), was a complainer (or indeed NS herself). However I have several questions regarding LL's role in the Alex Salmond (AS) investigation:
1. Why did LL approach Geoff Aberdein (GA) in early March when GA had long since ceased working for AS?
2. Was her approach an invitiation to GA to "dish some dirt" on his former boss?
3. Did this alarm GA to the extent that he immediately spoke about the matter to two others?
2. Was her approach an invitiation to GA to "dish some dirt" on his former boss?
3. Did this alarm GA to the extent that he immediately spoke about the matter to two others?
By 29th March 2017 when the GA/NS meeting took place, the AS investigation was in full swing, carried out by civil servants on behalf of the government. Therefore it was indisputably a government matter. Nevertheless, it appears the meeting was not properly recorded or minuted.
4. Was the failure to record or minute the meeting a precaution to create "plausible deniability" should GA fail to "play ball"?
5. Was the objective to allow LL/NS to conceal at a later date the content of the meeting or indeed the fact that it had ever taken place?
5. Was the objective to allow LL/NS to conceal at a later date the content of the meeting or indeed the fact that it had ever taken place?
6. It appears that GA did indeed fail to play ball. Is this why the 29.03 meeting was omitted from NS's first formal statement on her contacts with and involvement in the investigation? ("forgotten" by both LL and NS in her statement to the Permanent Secretary on 6th June 2018)
It seems to me that these are all legitimate matters for discussion - all the more so since Ms Lloyd did not give evidence in the judicial review or criminal trial, and will not appear before the Parliamentary Committee - that do not involve her role as a potential complainer.
Therefore I am requesting confirmation from COPFS that it is not an offence to refer by name to potential complainers such as Ms Lloyd, when discussing matters unrelated to their role as potential complainers.
Thank you for your assistance.
Thank you for your assistance.
