FOI/202500470029 · FOI · partially withheld
Deputy First Minister's involvement in matters concerning the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry: FOI release
Information requested
You asked for information regarding the Deputy First Minister's involvement in matters concerning the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry, specifically with the Solicitor General and Scottish Police Federation. Details of the specific questions are provided below with answers.
1. How many times has Ms Forbes met with the Solicitor General to discuss the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry or any matter related to Sheku Bayoh since her appointment as Deputy First Minister?
2. Please provide, dates, times and location of said meetings.
3. Please provide details of phone calls and emails exchanged with the Solicitor General regarding the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry or any matter related to Sheku Bayoh since Ms Forbes' appointment as Deputy First Minister.
4. Please provide copies of emails, letters and text messages exchanged with the Solicitor General regarding the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry or any matter related to Sheku Bayoh since Ms Forbes' appointment as Deputy First Minister.
5. How many times has Ms Forbes met with the Scottish Police Federation and/or its legal representatives to discuss the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry or any matter related to Sheku Bayoh since her appointment as Deputy First Minister?
6. In relation to the above, please provide, dates, times and locations of any meetings with the Scottish Police Federation.
7. Please also provide details of phone calls and emails exchanged with the Scottish Police Federation and/or their legal representatives.
8. Please provide the names of those in the Scottish Police Federation and/or their legal representatives that Ms Forbes has corresponded with regarding the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry, or any matter related to Sheku Bayoh, since her appointment as Deputy First Minister.
9. Please provide details of how many Scottish Police Federation sponsored events Ms Forbes has attended since her appointment as Deputy First Minister.
10. For all Scottish Police Federation events attended, please provide details of the event, location and dates.
Response
While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance we are unable to provide some of the information you have requested because an exemption under Section 36(1) of Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) (confidentiality in legal proceedings) applies. Section 36(1) of the FOISA provides an exemption from disclosure where the information in question is subject to confidentiality of communications, such as legal advice or other privileged correspondence, and a claim to confidentiality could be maintained in legal proceedings.
This exemption is designed to protect the principle of legal professional privilege, which ensures that individuals and public authorities can seek and receive legal advice in confidence. Although this exemption is not absolute, it is subject to the public interest test. This means that even where the exemption applies, we must consider whether the public interest in disclosing the information outweighsthe interest in maintaining the confidentiality. In this case, while there is a general public interest in transparency and accountability, we have concluded that the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of legal communications—particularly to safeguard the integrity of legal processes and the ability of public authorities to obtain candid legal advice—outweighs the interest in disclosure.
Some of the information requested has been withheld under Section 38(1)(b) of FOISA, which exempts personal data from disclosure where releasing it would contravene any of the data protection principles set out in the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018.
This exemption applies where the information relates to a third party and its disclosure would be unfair, unlawful, or otherwise breach their rights to privacy. As this exemption is designed to protect individuals’ personal data, it is generally considered an absolute exemption and is not subject to the public interest test. However, in limited circumstances where the conditions under Section 38(1)(b) are met but the exemption is not absolute, we have considered whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the interest in maintaining confidentiality. In this case, we have concluded that the rights and freedoms of the individuals concerned must be protected, and the exemption has therefore been applied. Information that is out of scope has also been redacted and notice given where this has been applied.
1. How many times has Ms Forbes met with the Solicitor General to discuss the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry or any matter related to Sheku Bayoh since her appointment as Deputy First Minister?
Since becoming Deputy First Minister, Ms Forbes has attended one meeting about the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry or related matters where the Solicitor General was also in attendance.
2. Please provide, dates, times and location of said meetings.
Tuesday 2 October 2024, 16:15-16:45 via Teams.
3. Please provide details of phone calls and emails exchanged with the Solicitor General regarding the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry or any matter related to Sheku Bayoh since Ms Forbes' appointment as Deputy First Minister.
AND
4. Please provide copies of emails, letters and text messages exchanged with the Solicitor General regarding the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry or any matter related to Sheku Bayoh since Ms Forbes' appointment as Deputy First Minister.
Correspondence details Copy of correspondence Exemptions applied 13 December 2024 Submission from Solicitor General to DFM FOI - 202500470029 - Email 1 - 13 December 2024 FoI - 202500470029 - Email 1 - attachment 1 FoI - 202500470029 - Email 1 - attachment 2 Section 38(1)(b) - Personal data relating to third party Since your request, some of the information provided here (submission made to the Deputy First Minister by the Solicitor General on 13 December 2024) has been released by the Inquiry and is available from the Sheku Bayoh Inquiry website: https://www.shekubayohinquiry.scot/hearings/day-123-procedure-and-conduct-hearing-12062025-am. 17 January 2025 Email from the Solicitor General to the Deputy First Minister FOI - 202500470029 - Email 2 - 17 January 2025 Section 38(1)(b) - Personal data relating to third party 22 January 2025 Submission from Solicitor General to DFM FOI - 202500470029 - Email 3 - 22 January 2025 FoI - 202500470029 - Email 3 - attachment 1 FoI - 202500470029 - Email 3 - attachment 2 FoI - 202500470029 - Email 3 - attachment 3 Section 38(1)(b) - Personal data relating to third party. Since your request, some of the information provided here (submissions made to the Deputy First Minister by the Solicitor General on 13 December 2024 and 22 January 2025) has been released by the Inquiry and is available from the Sheku Bayoh Inquiry website: https://www.shekubayohinquiry.scot/hearings/day-123-procedure-and-conduct-hearing-12062025-am. 22 May 2025 Note from Solicitor General to DFM advising of submission made to procedural hearing FOI - 202500470029 - Email 4 - 22 May 2025 FOI - 202500470029 - Email 4 - Attachment Section 38(1)(b) - Personal data relating to third party
5. How many times has Ms Forbes met with the Scottish Police Federation and/or its legal representatives to discuss the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry or any matter related to Sheku Bayoh since her appointment as Deputy First Minister?
None.
6. In relation to the above, please provide, dates, times and locations of any meetings with the Scottish Police Federation.
N/A.
7. Please also provide details of phone calls and emails exchanged with the Scottish Police Federation and/or their legal representatives.
To/From Date Details of correspondence 1 PBW Law to DFM 17 September 2024 Written submission on behalf of the officers and former officers inviting DFM not to so extend the terms of reference. 2 Letter from DFM to all core participant legal reps 14 October 2024 Letter sent to all legal representatives, including PBW Law inviting written representations on the request to extend the ToR by Friday 25 October. 3 PBW Law to DFM 14 October 2024 Letters sent from PBW Law querying correspondence sent from DFM to another legal representative but not to PBW Law. 4 PBW Law to DFM 15 October 2024 Acknowledgement from PBW Law of the consultation approach being taken by DFM, and confirmation that letter dated 17th September 2024 reflects PBW Law’s position. 5 Letter from DFM to all core participant legal reps 14 November 2024 Letter sent to all legal representatives, including PBW Law confirming that DFM had written to the Bayoh family solicitor seeking permission to share representations made on behalf of the Bayoh family with all core participants. 6 PBW Law to DFM 15 November 2024 Acknowledgement from PBW Law of DFM’s letter of 14 November 2024. 7 Letter from DFM to all core participant legal reps 29 November 2024 Letter sent to all legal representatives, including PBW Law advising that the Bayoh family’s legal representative declined the request to share their representations requesting an amendment to the Public Inquiry’s Terms of Reference with other core participants and requesting any final views on the request to be submitted by Monday 9 December
8 PBW Law to DFM 3 December 2024 Letter advising that PBW Law have reviewed a written submission prepared by the legal representative of another group of core participants and confirming that PBW Law adopts these submissions on behalf of their clients. 9 PBW Law to DFM 16 December 2024 Letter confirming PBW Law consent to DFM providing the Bayoh family’s legal representative with copies of their representations on the condition that PBW Law also be provided all representations made on behalf of the Bayoh family. 10 Letter from DFM to all core participant legal reps 14 January 2025 Letter sent to all legal representatives, including PBW Law advising that the family wanted the VRR decision in 2019 included in the terms of reference; confirming that in the absence of sharing copies of the family’s representations that the Chair’s letter of 18 November 2024, which was copied to core participants’ representatives, contains a full, accurate and adequate summary of the initial request; and confirming that, should the Government consider that it is in the public interest to extend the terms of reference, the Crown, without making any concession as to the validity of any concerns as to the potentially flawed nature of the prosecutorial decisions has confirmed that it would not stand in the way of an examination of the prosecutorial decision-making by the Inquiry. Final written submissions requested by 21 January 2025. 11 PBW Law to DFM 20 January 2025 Letter seeking to confirm whether the DFM would disclose the Bayoh family’s application to Core Participants. 12 DFM to PBW Law 20 January 2025 Letter to PBW Law confirming representations have not been shared with any other party and seeking final written submissions by 21 January. 13 PBW Law to DFM 21 January 2025 Letter advising that PBW Law have reviewed further written submissions prepared by the legal representative of another group of core participants and confirming that PBW Law adopts these submissions on behalf of their clients. 14 Letter from DFM to all core participant legal reps 30 January 2025 Letter sent to all legal representatives, including PBW Law advising of intention to provide all parties with copies of the inventories of productions that have been lodged by parties to the judicial review that are relevant to the extension request and seeking any objections to this course of action. 15 Letter from DFM to all core participant legal reps 30 January 2025 Letter sent to all legal representatives, including PBW Law sharing copies of the inventories of productions lodged by parties to the judicial review relevant to the extension request. 16 Letter from DFM to all core participant legal reps 31 January 2025 Letter sent to all legal representatives, including PBW Law sharing written submissions from the Solicitor General to DFM (13/12 and 22/01) and seeking final representation by 7 February. 17 PBW Law to DFM 4 February 2025 Letter from PBW Law providing final written submission on behalf of those they represent. 18 PBW Law to DFM 6 February 2025 Letter from PBW Law to DFM providing a copy of a letter sent to Lord Bracadale from PBW Law alleging apparent bias and seeking agreement from DFM to pause consideration of the ToR extension request. 19 DFM to PBW Law 6 February 2025 Letter from DFM to PBW Law acknowledging letter and confirming deadline of 7 February for final representations. 20 Decision letter issued from DFM to all core participant legal reps 25 February 2025 Letter sent to all legal representatives, including PBW Law confirming decision not to extend the ToR.
8. Please provide the names of those in the Scottish Police Federation and/or their legal representatives that Ms Forbes has corresponded with regarding the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry, or any matter related to Sheku Bayoh, since her appointment as Deputy First Minister.
PBW Law – legal representatives of the Scottish Police Federation.
9. Please provide details of how many Scottish Police Federation sponsored events Ms Forbes has attended since her appointment as Deputy First Minister.
None.
10. For all Scottish Police Federation events attended, please provide details of the event, location and dates.
N/A.
About FOI
The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.
Detected exemption language
Response While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance we are unable to provide some of the information you have requested because an exemption under Section 36(1) of Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) (confidentiality in legal proceedings) applies. Section 36(1) of the FOISA provides an exemption from disclosure where the information in question is subject to confidentiality of communications, such as legal advice or other privileged correspondence, and a claim to confidentiality could be maintained in legal proceedings. This exemption is designed to protect the principle of legal professional privilege, which ensures that individuals and public authorities can seek and receive legal advice in confidence. Although this exemption is not absolute, it is subject to the public interest test. This means that even where the exemption applies, we must consider whether the public interest in disclosing the information outweighsthe interest in maintaining the confidentiality.