Share
Scotland's most senior prosecutor has defended herself against an allegation of "corruption" and denied giving "political advantage" to John Swinney when she told the First Minister details of the charge that his party's former chief executive is facing.
In an intense session in Holyrood, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, defended sending a memo to the First Minister which revealed some details of the charge against Peter Murrell – who was the SNP's chief executive for over 20 years.
Sent on January 19 it stated that Mr Murrell – who is Nicola Sturgeon's estranged husband – was facing a charge of having embezzled £459,046.49 from the SNP.
However the information was sent to the First Minister weeks before details of the charge were published on February 13.
As a result opposition MSPs claimed the Lord Advocate had given "political advantage to the First Minister" – with Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay saying it "smacked of corruption".
And Scottish Labour MSP Michael Marra, who raised the urgent question in the Scottish Parliament, said: "In writing to the First Minister, the Lord Advocate provided information that was available to nobody else.
"With details also passed to Mr Swinney's advisers.. that information conferred clear political advantage to the First Minister.
"This absolutely stinks. On what planet is it not political interference?"
He also said that former First Minister Jack McConnell had told him he could not "recall ever being briefed ahead of such a case on charges or timetable" adding "it would always have been particularly unacceptable for such information to be requested for a case where I had any connection to the accused. That is categoric and it is damning."
But the Lord Advocate – who is Scotland's chief prosecutor but also sits in John Swinney's Cabinet, and as areuslt had recused herself from dealing with the Murrell case, responded by saying that such decisions were made on a "case by case basis."
She said: "I did not brief the First Minister in relation to the prosecution of M. Murrell or the contents of the indictment. My minute was a factual confirmation of the fact that Mr Murrill had been indicted and the nature of the charge, including the value of the alleged embezzlement.
"From the point at which an indictment is served, there is no limitation on its terms being made public. The timing of my minute to the First Minister after service of the indictment reflected this.
"My notification was done to advise Scottish ministers that an indictment had been served, confirm that the appropriate processes had been followed in relation to law officers not being involved in the decision making in the case, and remind them that it would not be appropriate to make any public comment on the matter.
"This process protects the administration of justice and does not, I believe, confer any political advantage."
She added: "The communication to the First Minister was provided after the indictment was served. At a point where there's no limitation on its terms being made public by the accused.
"It was appropriate to clarify with the First Minister that I had no involvement in the operational decisions and to reinforce the need for strict observance of contempt of court principles that protects the integrity of the proceedings and public confidence."
Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay however said the situation "smacks of corruption", given the Lord Advocate was appointed by Ms Sturgeon and the case revolved around her estranged husband who was SNP chief executive while she was the party leader.
He said: "She also gave Mr Swinney key details of court dates to the SNP's clear electoral advantage. This smacks of corruption. It undermines public trust in the office of the Lord Advocate. to be politically neutral. Any remnants of that neutrality are in ruins. So can the Lord Advocate tell me if she is considering her position?
The Lord Advocate told him she was not, insisting: "Any suggestion that I am corrupt, or my position is compromised, I roundly reject."
She told MSPs the minute to Mr Swinney had been sent "after an independent prosecutor had taken the decision in the case" – stressing it was "not an opportunity to influence.".
Ms Bain added it was to inform him of a "significant development" in the case and to "ensure the government is reminded of its legal responsibilities to restrict its comments."
She added: "That sharing of the information does not confer any political advantage or lead to a compromise to the case.
"My minute was factual confirmation of the fact that Mr Murrell had been indicted, and the nature of the charge, including the value of the alleged embezzlement.
"From the point at which an indictment is served, there is no limitation on its terms being made public.
"The timing of my minute to the First Minister, after service of the indictment, reflected this."
Her comments came after the First Minister earlier refused to comment on the situation, only saying he would respect "the independence of the criminal process within our country and within our courts."
Asked six times about the appropriateness of his receiving a memo from the Lord Advocate on the case he repeated: "This is a live criminal case and I'm not going to make any comment."
Asked about the email to the First Minister, a spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said: "The Lord Advocate provided the First Minister with an update to ensure it was understood she was not involved in the case, that it was active for contempt of court, and therefore it should not be commented upon.
"This message was sent formally after the indictment had been served in order to form part of the record and ensure transparency in due course.
"Once an indictment has been served on an accused, it stands to become public at any point."
A Scottish Government spokesperson meanwhile said: "It would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to comment on live criminal proceedings."
On Tuesday, the Scottish Government had faced questions about the postponement of Murrell's next court appearance until after May's Holyrood election.He had been expected to appear at the High Court in Glasgow for a preliminary hearing this Friday, but this has now been moved to May 25 at the High Court in Edinburgh.
Parliamentary business minister Graeme Dey said: "Scheduling of trials is a matter for the independent judiciary and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service."
