Swinney vows to respect court ‘independence’ amid Murrell charge questions

John Swinney has insisted he will respect “the independence of the criminal process within our country and within our courts”, after it emerged he was given details of the charge against former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell before it was made public.

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

Opposition parties have questioned why the First Minister was sent details of the charge in January.

On Tuesday evening, the Sun newspaper said it had seen an email showing Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain notified the First Minister on January 19 that Murrell was accused of embezzling almost £460,000.

The details of the indictment against Nicola Sturgeon’s estranged husband were not published until February 13.

During a visit to a mental health charity in Perth on Wednesday, Mr Swinney was asked why he was given advance sight of the charge.

He told the Press Association: “This is a live criminal case and I’m not going to make any comment.”

When asked why the charge was not made public earlier, he gave the same statement.

The First Minister was then asked if he would be making a statement on the issue at some point.

He said: “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.”

Scotland’s top prosecutor is facing calls to explain her email to Mr Swinney.

The Conservatives have said the Lord Advocate, who leads the Crown Office prosecution service and is part of the Scottish Government, should answer questions from MSPs.

The Crown Office has said the Lord Advocate was not involved in decisions on Murrell’s case and her email was “in order to form part of the record and ensure transparency in due course”.

Murrell is accused of embezzling money worth almost £460,000 from the SNP between August 2010 and January 2023.

The Sun reported the Lord Advocate’s message was passed on to others within the Scottish Government after it was sent to the First Minister.

Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay said: “There appears to be no good reason as to why the Lord Advocate should issue John Swinney with a private warning about the alleged scale of the SNP fraud case – while the public are told the bare minimum.

“This extraordinary revelation suggests something is rotten at the heart of the relationship between John Swinney and Scotland’s independent prosecution chief, who remains a member of his Cabinet.

“Yes, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband is on trial, but that’s got nothing to do with John Swinney, so it’s hard to understand why he should get special treatment from the Crown Office.”

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said on X: “This looks dodgy. John Swinney and the Lord Advocate have serious questions to answer.”

Mr Sarwar has now written to the Lord Advocate asking her to appear before the Scottish Parliament to address the process and judgment around the disclosure of the information.

Mr Sarwar wrote: “I am not asking you to comment on evidence, operational decisions or the merits of any case. I am demanding accountability for the propriety of the communication itself and the safeguards that were, or were not, applied.

“This goes directly to public confidence in the independence of prosecution in Scotland and to the wider concern, long raised across politics and civic society, that the Lord Advocate’s dual role is structurally vulnerable in high-profile or politically-sensitive cases.

“It appears to many that your act was designed to confer clear political advantage in the run-up to an election.

“You must attend the Scottish Parliament and give an oral statement, followed by questioning in the chamber, to explain your actions.

“This is not a matter to be dealt with by correspondence and it is not suitable to be pushed into a committee appearance. The public interest requires direct parliamentary scrutiny in an open session.

“If it is established that your actions gave, or could reasonably be seen as giving, a political advantage to the governing party, then the question of your position is unavoidable.

“Scotland’s top prosecutor cannot be involved in conduct that allows any party to gauge political exposure from a live indictment, or appears to do so, and still expect public confidence to hold.

“I am asking for a clear written reply confirming that you will attend the Scottish Parliament to give an oral statement, and that you will do so at the earliest opportunity.”

Tory MSP Douglas Ross has said he will submit an urgent question in the Scottish Parliament on the issue on Wednesday.

He said: “This revelation raises serious questions for the Lord Advocate.

“Dorothy Bain was appointed by the SNP First Minister and sits in Cabinet.

“I’m lodging an urgent question in the Scottish Parliament and, if selected, the Lord Advocate can explain the motivation behind her extraordinary move.”

Asked about the email to the First Minister, a spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service told PA: “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 said: “It would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to comment on live criminal proceedings.”

Earlier on Tuesday, the Government 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 it 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.”