David Hamilton said he was disappointed with the government’s behaviour and the fact it continued with the case despite “limited prospects of success and the associated impact on public funds”.

First Minister John Swinney claimed, however, that the government acted “rationally”.

In October, the government published legal advice given to ministers before the case. It included a warning that judges would likely reject the government’s case if it took a “broad” approach.

Mr Hamilton said it was disappointing that the government, knowing “more likely than not” to lose the case, nevertheless continued with it.

Mr Hamilton said: “I was deeply disappointed in the tone of the media statement accompanying the disclosure, which, in my view, misrepresented the facts.”

The commissioner added: “Ministers’ chances of success diminished considerably over time and attempts to present this otherwise are not what I would expect from a public authority.”

The original submissions to his office also contained “factual discrepancies”.

“Had more care been taken in compiling arguments when my office sought submissions, a failed appeal to the Court of Session, delay to the requester and the significant impact on the public purse may have been avoided,” Mr Hamilton said.

The case revolves around an inquiry into whether Ms Sturgeon misled MSPs about whether she met the late Alex Salmond’s chief of staff after allegations of harassment were made against Mr Salmond.

Irish lawyer James Hamilton carried out the inquiry and cleared Ms Sturgeon. A freedom of information request was later made by a member of the public for all the evidence gathered in the inquiry.

The government refused the request on the basis it did not have the information, resulting in an appeal to the information commissioner, who said that the government did – in fact – have the information.

The government appealed the decision in the Court of Session in December last year and lost. A member of the public then made an FOI for the legal advice the government had been given over its appeal. The government rejected that request, prompting yet another appeal to the information commissioner.

The commissioner found that the government had broken the FOI rules and that it was not entitled to withhold the advice, which it eventually did produce, albeit at “the 11th hour”.