Lord Advocate denies giving First Minister ‘political advantage’ in Murrell case

Scotland’s most senior prosecutor has 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.

Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC was in Holyrood to defend sending a minute to Mr Swinney revealing details of the charge against Peter Murrell – who is also Nicola Sturgeon’s ex-husband.

That minute – sent on January 19 – said the former SNP chief executive was facing a charge of having embezzled £459,046.49 from the SNP.

With the information sent to the First Minister before details of the charge were published on February 13, opposition MSPs claimed the Lord Advocate had given “political advantage to the First Minister”.

Labour’s Michael Marra 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, Mr Marra insisted: “That information conferred clear political advantage to the First Minister.

“This absolutely stinks. On what planet is it not political interference.”

Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay meanwhile said the situation “smacks of corruption”, given the Lord Advocate was appointed by Ms Sturgeon – who served as first minister between 2014 and 2023.

Mr Findlay argued the move “undermines public trust in the office of the Lord Advocate to be politically neutral”.

He added that “any remnants of that neutrality are in ruins”, and the Tory asked Ms Bain is she was “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 made clear: “That sharing of the information does not confer any political advantage or lead to a compromise to the case.”

The Lord Advocate stated: “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 insisted he would respect “the independence of the criminal process within our country and within our courts”.

The First Minister declined to comment further on why he was given early sight of the indictment.

Speaking during a visit to a mental health charity in Perth on Wednesday, Mr Swinney told the Press Association: “This is a live criminal case and I’m not going to make any comment.”

He added: “Parliament has got to be very clear about the importance of respecting the independence of the criminal process within our country and within our courts, and I intend to respect that.”

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.”