3 June 2026
The Court of Session has issued a ruling which finds that the Scottish Ministers' failure to comply with the compliance timescale set out in a December FOI Decision amounted to a contempt of court.
The Decision - Decision 281/2025 - concerned a request for communications and information relating to the James Hamilton Report and published legal advice. In the Decision, the Commissioner found that the Scottish Government had not been entitled to withhold some of the requested information, and required disclosure. Compliance with the Decision was required by 15 January 2026.
Following a failure to comply, the Commissioner issued a warning letter on 16 January, requiring that the Scottish Government comply by 22 January or the matter would be referred to the Court of Session. When this deadline was not complied with, the Commissioner referred the matter to the Court.
Commenting on the case, Scottish Information Commissioner David Hamilton said:
“I welcome today’s ruling from the Court of Session that the Scottish Ministers’ failure to comply with the timescales set out in my FOI decision amounted to a contempt of court.
"This was the first time in more than 20 years of FOI that a Commissioner has had to refer non-compliance with one of their decisions to the court. It was not a step taken lightly, and was all the more disappointing given that Scottish Ministers have a role in making the law and an assumed respect for the rule of law.
“Failing to comply with my decisions undermines the fundamental principles of FOI and damages the information rights of individuals. I trust that the Scottish Ministers will now reflect carefully on this ruling and review their broader legal approach to certain aspects of FOI compliance - and particularly those relating to the Hamilton Inquiry.
“If Scotland’s FOI rights are to remain robust, effective and valued, the timescales for both the provision of information and compliance with my rulings must be respected by every public authority.
“People make FOI requests when the information they seek is important to them, and any inappropriate delay is a direct denial of their rights. We must work to ensure that this does not happen again.”
[ENDS]
