Tory MSP seeks ‘transparency’ amid Peter Murrell court date row

Douglas Ross has called for “transparency” as the Scottish Government said it “utterly refutes” claims of any discussions about the postponement of Peter Murrell’s next court appearance.

The Conservative MSP said timing of the court date “absolutely stinks”, accusing a minister of trying to “fob off parliament” as he raised the issue at Holyrood.

The next court appearance for the former SNP chief executive, who is accused of embezzling money from the party, has been moved to a date after the Holyrood election.

He had been expected to appear at the High Court in Glasgow for a preliminary hearing on February 20 but the hearing has now been moved to May 25 at the High Court in Edinburgh.

Murrell is accused of embezzling the funds from the party between August 2010 and January 2023, according to an indictment seen by the Press Association and first reported in The Sun.

Speaking in the chamber on Tuesday, Mr Ross asked “if anyone who works for the Scottish Government, including ministers, special advisers or civil servants, were involved in discussions concerning the postponement of the trial of Peter Murrell until after the Scottish Parliament election in May?”

Business minister Graeme Dey said: “There have been no discussions. Scheduling of trials is a matter for the independent judiciary and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.”

Mr Ross accused the minister of trying to “fob off Parliament”.

He said: “This comes down to transparency, because this stinks, it absolutely stinks that an accusation that was first made before the 2021 Scottish Parliament election will now not come to court until after the 2026 Scottish Parliament election.

“Does the minister not even realise or simply accept how bad this looks for his party?

“We have almost 20 special advisers, almost 30 Government ministers and almost 9,000 civil servants within the Scottish Government.

“Given Graeme Dey has just given a categorical reassurance that none of these almost 10,000 individuals had any involvement or any discussion at all, can he update Parliament on how he was able to assemble that information in the last couple of days?

“And if he wasn’t, has he just come here to try and fob off Parliament, which is a signal from this corrupt Government and corrupt party of government?”

Mr Dey reiterated that the scheduling of the trial was a matter for the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service.

He said: “I utterly refute the allegations within that commentary from Douglas Ross, typical though it is of his approach to many subjects. Let me be absolutely clear this is a live court case and therefore I would strongly suggest we should, all of us, be cautious about our comments in relation to it.

“But I reiterate that the scheduling of trials is a matter for the independent judiciary and the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service. It is a matter entirely for the judge to determine the date for preliminary hearings or actual trials themselves.”

Murrell was first arrested in April 2023 as part of the police investigation into the SNP’s finances and was charged in April 2024.

He appeared at Edinburgh Sheriff Court in March 2025 where he faced a charge of embezzlement, making no plea.

A spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) said: “Scotland’s prosecutors act independently and in the public interest in all cases. COPFS understand there is significant interest in this matter which is active under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

“The provisions of this Act protect the integrity of proceedings, preserve access to justice for victims and secure the rights of people accused of crime.

“A decision to adjourn a hearing to another date is a routine procedural matter. It does not represent a development in the case.

“Anyone publishing items about active cases is advised to exercise caution as material must not be commentary or analysis of evidence, witnesses or accused. Contempt of court carries penalties of up to two years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.

“The Lord Advocate and Solicitor General were not involved in decisions on this case.”