ALEX Salmond has told MSPs that he deeply regrets taking the Scottish Government to court, but that he was left with no choice because of their “disgraceful” and “unlawful” behaviour.

The former First Minister made the remarks in a 21-page submission to the Holyrood inquiry probing the civil service’s botched investigation of harassment claims made against him.  

Salmond had the exercise set aside in January 2019, with a judicial review declaring it “unlawful” and “tainted by bias”. The Government’s flawed handling ultimately cost the taxpayer half a million pounds in costs.

Weeks after winning the judicial review, Salmond was charged with multiple offences, including attempted rape and sexual assault.

He was acquitted on all charges.  

In his submission, the ex-SNP leader says the costs to the taxpayer because of the Government's "incompetence" will likely be "upward" of £750,000. 

Salmond said that when he was made aware of the complaints he offered the Government “conciliation, mediation and then arbitration which I was prepared to accept as binding”.  

He added: "All such attempts at swift and confidential resolution of the legal issues without the expense and confrontation of court proceedings were rejected without consulting the complainers, in case of mediation without initially consulting the complainers and in the case of arbitration without consulting the complainers at all. 

Salmond also claims that at a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon in April 2018, she “suggested that she would intervene in favour of a mediation process at an appropriate stage”.

Though, he adds, “she subsequently decided against such an intervention".

Sturgeon has repeatedly insisted that she did not attempt to intervene in the investigation process

The Government’s probe was flawed because Judith Mackinnon, the investigating officer, had been in prior contact with the two complainers before she was appointed.

It was only in November 2018 when that was finally disclosed.

Salmond has accused the Government of concealing relevant documents which would have shown this prior contact sooner.

He told the inquiry: “On December 14th we successfully petitioned for a Commission on Diligence. It was opposed by the Government who had maintained that no more relevant documents existed. 

“Remarkably, the Scottish Government had even signed a certificate confirming to the Court that no documents existed. In direct contradiction of that position, in the immediate run up to the Commission, during the Commission itself and in the aftermath of it, many batches of documents were produced which exposed many incriminating pieces of evidence against the Government’s position.

“Furthermore it became clear that the Government’s position until that point on the nature of the contact between the Investigating Officer and the complainers was untrue.”

The ex-SNP leader says he and his legal team “became concerned about the possibility of the Government attempting to sist [delay] the judicial review and (mindful of their likely loss in court) seek to emphasise instead the police investigation".

In his submission, Salmond quotes a witness statement which claims an SNP special adviser said in November they knew they would lose the judicial review but that they would “get him” in the criminal case.

It wasn't until January that ministers conceded the case and that after a watershed meeting when the Government's legal team said they would have to quit the case if the matter was not resolved.

Salmond also claims that the leak of the complaint to the Daily Record in August 2018 “came from within Government and was committed with the intention of damaging my reputation but with no regard whatsoever to the interests of the complainers.”  

He says the leaks were “carried out with no consideration to data protection laws, and with no regard to the interests or rights of the complainers or indeed myself. They were considered by the [Information Commissioner’s Office] to be prima face criminal. They set off a media storm deeply damaging to my reputation.”

Salmond told the committee: “It is rare in my experience, for the Scottish Government to behave unlawfully. It is surely rarer still for the Government to only concede a case when both of its external counsel threaten resignation.” 

He said the Government’s failure in the judicial review was “not due just to incompetence.”  

“The pattern of government lack of candour and a systematic failure to disclose has been deliberate and consistent since 7 March 2018 

“It continued through the judicial review process and then my criminal trial. To my astonishment, it continues to date with a persistent failure to produce all relevant documents to the parliamentary inquiry which has forced two Parliamentary votes and triggered an unprecedented procedure under s23 of the Scotland Act.  

“It has also seen the recall of a number of government witnesses to clarify and in some cases correct their evidence. 

“In short, it remains a matter of deep regret that I had no option but to take the Scottish Government to the Court of Session. I did so very reluctantly and only after every other avenue had been exhausted.

“But courts exist for a reason. They exist because when Governments act illegally there must be a remedy for the citizen. In this case, the illegality was finally conceded but only after a legal process which will have cost upwards of £750,000 of taxpayers money and which caused immense strain and distress to all involved.  

“The behaviour of the Government was, in my view, a disgrace. But actions have consequences. Accountability is at the heart of the Scottish Parliament. The rule of law requires that those who have acted illegally are held to account. It is now the job of this Committee to resolve how that is best done.” 

Salmond is due to give evidence in person to the inquiry on Tuesday, with Sturgeon appearing the following week.