‘Apparatus of the state’ turned against Alex Salmond, says legal team

The legal team that represented Alex Salmond during his criminal trial has said the “apparatus of the state” turned against him. 

David McKie, a senior partner at Levy & McRae, said in his tribute to the late former first minister that the treatment “he endured” would have “broken many people, but not Alex”.

Salmond was acquitted of all charges following a sexual assault trial in 2020. He had previously won a civil case against the Scottish Government after it carried out a botched investigation into allegations against him.

McKie commended Salmond as “the real driving force” behind navigating the three-year period during the judicial review, the trial, and the subsequent parliamentary inquiry, adding that he “very quickly grasped the legal issues” and “fought hard to ensure justice was done”.

He said: “While we helped to navigate Alex through three legal processes (judicial review, a trial and the subsequent parliamentary inquiry), the real driving force in all of those processes was Alex himself. He very quickly grasped the legal issues involved and fought hard to ensure that justice was done.

“Alex’s courage and strength of character over the three-year period, from the Scottish Government launching an unlawful process against him, throughout his criminal trial in which he was cleared on all charges by a jury of his peers, to his unimpeachable evidence in the parliamentary inquiry, was absolutely incredible.

“What he endured – the apparatus of the state turning against him – would have broken many people, but not Alex.”

Last year, Salmond went to the Court of Session seeking “significant damages” and compensation for loss of earnings from Scottish ministers.

Veteran Tory MP David Davis, who was a good friend of Salmond, has also previously used parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons to raise concerns about the process surrounding the investigation into the former first minister.  

McKie added that Salmond “showed no bitterness” towards his accusers or to the “many others who jumped on the bandwagon to condemn him”.  

McKie said: “He remained utterly determined to see justice done but showed no bitterness or anger towards his accusers or to the many others who jumped on the bandwagon to condemn him, even before any evidence had been produced or presented.

“Instead, he simply focussed on the evidence and understood, unlike many commentators at the time, the importance of the due process of law. While some individuals, for whatever reasons, remained critical and sceptical (even after his legal victories, all of which were grounded on the evidence), his friends and his true supporters, as well as those who respect the rule and process of law, recognised and respected his complete vindication.”