Official Report 440KB pdf
17:06
The next item of business is an urgent question. I remind members that the legal proceedings referred to in the question are active, and the sub judice rule applies.
I have admitted the question having carefully considered its admissibility in relation to rule 7.5.1 of standing orders, and I have allowed it on the basis that it is limited to the matters that are covered in the question and that no discussion of the specifics of the case will be permitted.
Peter Murrell Charges (Information Sharing)
To ask the Scottish Government whether the Lord Advocate will provide details of the reasons for her reportedly sharing confidential details of the charges against Peter Murrell with the First Minister, and whether any further information regarding the case has been made available to ministers or special advisers.
I did not brief the First Minister in relation to the prosecution of Mr Murrell or the contents of the indictment. My minute was a 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 that. My notification was done to advise Scottish ministers that an indictment had been served, to confirm that the appropriate processes had been followed in relation to law officers not being involved in the decision making in the case, and to remind them that it would not be appropriate to make any public comment on the matter. That process protects the administration of justice and does not, I believe, confer any political advantage.
In writing to the First Minister, the Lord Advocate provided information that was available to nobody else. That information was then passed on to Scottish National Party advisers. The Lord Advocate set out the scale of the charge and the fact that no trial would be held until March 2027. That information conferred clear political advantage to the First Minister. This absolutely stinks. On what planet is it not political interference?
Did the First Minister or any of his colleagues or his team ever ask the Lord Advocate or her colleagues for information relating to the case? Why did the Lord Advocate choose to share that confidential information with the First Minister? In fact, why was any detail beyond a simple notice of non-involvement given at all?
The key point that I make is that the minute was sent after an independent prosecutor had taken the decision in the case. The minute does not provide an opportunity to influence; it is only information for the protection of the process. It is about informing of a significant development that is entering the public domain, to ensure that the Government is reminded of its legal responsibilities to restrict its comments. It is done as a matter of course, on a case-by-case basis, by the prosecution service and on the judgment of the independent prosecutor.
The figure that Michael Marra mentioned appears on the indictment and was able to be shared. The sharing of that information does not confer any political advantage or lead to a compromise to the case. The statement was limited to a warning of contempt of court and was accompanied by a notification to the media of a preliminary hearing, to support the principles of open justice.
The Crown Office made a statement, which was limited to a warning of contempt of court and was accompanied by a notification to the media of a preliminary hearing to support the principles of open justice, and then my minute was sent after the decision was made by the independent prosecutor in the case. I cannot answer the question more fully than that.
The Lord Advocate should know that early access to that information confers political advantage and is not standard practice. Today, former First Minister Jack McConnell said:
“The Lord Advocate is correct to remind ministers that they should not comment in a live case, but I cannot recall ever being briefed ahead of such a case on charges or timetable, and 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 damning. How many other times in the Lord Advocate’s tenure has she seen fit to share with a First Minister that level of information on live court cases? Does she not accept that, in sending that information to the First Minister, she has compromised them both?
The communication to the First Minister was provided after the indictment was served, at a point at which there is no limitation on its terms being made public by the accused. The Crown followed its normal practice of alerting the media to the indictment, in the knowledge that the indictment would be shared with the media at a later stage, before the case called in court.
Public information about court proceedings is provided through the courts in the normal way. It was appropriate to clarify with the First Minister that I had no involvement in the operational decisions, and to reinforce the need for the strict observance of contempt of court principles. [Interruption.] That protects the integrity of the proceedings, and public confidence.
I would be grateful if we could hear one another. Many members wish to put a question. That will not be possible unless we can hear one another and continue our proceedings.
The Lord Advocate was appointed to the SNP Government by Nicola Sturgeon. The Lord Advocate then gave John Swinney information about a serious criminal case involving Nicola Sturgeon’s husband. She also gave Mr Swinney key details of court dates, to the SNP’s clear electoral advantage. That smacks of corruption. It undermines public trust in the office of the Lord Advocate, who is supposed to be politically neutral. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
Any remnants of that neutrality are in ruins. Is the Lord Advocate therefore considering her position?
I am not considering my position. The key point that I have made is this: the minute was sent after a decision had been made, in this case, by an independent prosecutor. It was not a minute that sought to influence. It was for information and the protection of the process. It is about informing of a significant development that is entering the public domain, to ensure that the Government is reminded of its legal responsibilities to restrict its comments on a live case.
Such a process is undertaken on a case-by-case basis and on the judgment of the independent prosecutor. I have had no involvement in this case, and I roundly reject any suggestion that I am corrupt or that my position is compromised.
Can the Lord Advocate reassert that no one has spoken to the Crown on the scheduling of the case? Does she agree that any suggestion that the independent Crown would allow any interference in the scheduling of a case—as the Opposition is desperately trying to suggest—would never be countenanced?
I can explain that Mr Murrell appeared on petition on 20 March 2025. Criminal procedure limits apply to the case, and those were effective on that date. That meant that the case was subject to extended time limits that were put in place to address the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. That added a period of six months to the time limits that would have otherwise applied in criminal trials. Therefore, the time limits that apply to the case were provided in terms of the statutory provisions as they stood on 20 March 2025.
As Mr Murrell was granted bail when he appeared on petition, the time limits that applied when the indictment was served on the accused were readily available and publicly understood. A preliminary hearing, or a first diet, must be commenced within 17 months of the date on which an accused first appears on petition. The trial must commence within 18 months of the date on which the accused first appears on petition.
A preliminary hearing is a hearing in which the readiness of the prosecution and the defence are assessed ahead of trial, and it is within those time limits that relevant hearings are fixed. Those hearings are scheduled by the independent judiciary and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Mr Murrell’s case is therefore live proceedings. The independence of the criminal courts is a fundamental part of our justice system. There should not and cannot be political interference in criminal cases.
The Scottish Government has had no discussion about the timing of Mr Murrell’s case. I understand from media reports that Mr Murrell’s legal representatives sought for the date of his court hearing to be changed, and that was agreed by the independent judge, sitting in the independent court.
It was after the indictment was served on Mr Murrell that I provided the update to the First Minister. The Crown Office has explained that that was to confirm that the Lord Advocate was not involved in the case. The case was active for contempt of court purposes, and no comment should be made in relation to the case.
It simply would not have happened that the Crown Office would have had influence over the decisions in relation to the timing of Mr Murrell’s case once it was in the hands of the independent court and the decisions as to its future progress were handled by an independent member of the judiciary. To say otherwise would be completely wrong, and that simply has not happened in this case.
I absolutely do not buy any accusation that the Lord Advocate is politically corrupt in this matter, but the Crown was asked why information was communicated to the First Minister about this case, and the answer seems to be that that is normal practice. The question that remains is: how common is it for the Lord Advocate to inform the First Minister about the specifics of an indictment? I still think that that merits an answer from the Lord Advocate.
I will also ask a more direct question. Was the minute to the First Minister from Ms Bain offered in her capacity as the Lord Advocate, as the principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government, or both?
The advice was offered on the basis that I am the Lord Advocate and the head of the independent prosecution service.
In relation to the other point, as I have said before, it is normal practice that the sharing of that type of information is done on a case-by-case basis and on the judgment of an independent prosecutor. That is because of the fundamental importance of protecting live proceedings and ensuring that they are not compromised in any way by inappropriate commentary.
It is an important and fundamental aspect of the rule of law that the importance of the contempt of court provisions and the restriction of comments on live cases bears repeating, in order to curb speculation and inappropriate commentary being applied to any live case.
It would not be appropriate for me to give examples of that happening in any particular live case at this stage, without me understanding the impact on the proceedings, as they may have at this stage, but I am happy to share, following on from this evening, information in relation to instances where a similar process has been undertaken in relation to informing the First Minister of important stages in high-profile and sensitive cases.
There is already concern about the court delaying the case until 27 May, so will the Lord Advocate be more specific about whether it is normal practice for a First Minister who is not the complainer in a case to be briefed in this way, and will the Lord Advocate tell the Parliament whether there are any other aspects of the trial that will be briefed to the First Minister?
The Parliament needs to know how many times this has happened, because it seems that, if it is the only time, it could be a dangerous precedent to set.
I understand that it is suggested that there has been a briefing. It is important to look at what actually happened. It was the submission of a minute to the First Minister that was in five paragraphs, and the very limited information that related to Mr Murrell’s case only took up a few lines in paragraph 3. We have made the minute available, and it is quite clear that it refers only to the preliminary hearing taking place, the charge and the tradition of law officers not being involved in the decision making. It also says that the case remains live, and that
“Now that the case has been indicted, further procedure and the timetable for the case will be determined by the Court.”
That is the content of the minute. There was not a briefing as we might understand it. It provides very straightforward information.
In so far as the other points that Ms McNeill has raised, there have been instances in other cases in which there has been notification, on a case-by-case basis, of the fact that there has been a significant development in a particularly high-profile and sensitive case. That will have been for the purpose that I have said before: to ensure that there is no inappropriate or unlawful comment on live proceedings. It is critical to the rule of law that that is profoundly respected. That was the whole purpose of sending the minute to the First Minister in this case.
We can give other examples of when that has been done, but I am concerned about ensuring that I protect the integrity of all the proceedings that those issues might relate to.
The Lord Advocate is offering examples, but what we need are numbers. How many times has this happened before? She can surely give us an answer to that, and, if she is telling us that it has happened more often, have those instances also involved the political party that John Swinney is the leader of? That is the issue here. As the leader of the SNP, he got information that was not available to anyone else. How many such cases are there and, of the other cases, did they also involve the SNP? If not, it is a totally different situation.
The Lord Advocate is trying to put this across as something that is perfectly normal. On the same day that she sent a minute to the First Minister with information about this case, why was the Crown Office telling reporters that the only information that could be made publicly available was the date of the preliminary hearing?
In relation to numbers and examples, referring back to the question that I was asked, I note that I do not see that formulated in the urgent question. However, I can give—[Interruption.]
Let us hear one another, colleagues.
I can, after this evening, provide more details of how—
Will the Lord Advocate take an intervention? The question has not been answered—
Mr Ross, let us hear the Lord Advocate.
I can, after today, give other examples of circumstances where this has happened previously. I would be able to give numbers and examples, as I can—[Interruption.]
However, I really need to say this: I have to protect on-going live cases in respect of which there has been a sharing of a significant development that has entered the public domain in a sensitive case. The point is this: it is a case that is highly sensitive, and it is a significant development, and I was seeking to remind the Government to respect the rule of law and to restrict its commentary on such an important matter.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer—
Members: Oh!
Presiding Officer, our standing orders make it very clear that if a minister answering questions has information available, they must provide that in their response to the question. The Lord Advocate has said very clearly that she has an answer to my question, but that she will provide it only after this session. That is not acceptable in a Parliament to which the Lord Advocate has been called to provide answers, and it is in breach of our standing orders.
Thank you, Mr Ross. The contribution that members make in the chamber is not a matter for the chair. It is a matter for the minister and for the Scottish Government as to their response.
I echo the colleagues who have rejected the deeply irresponsible allegations of corruption against the Lord Advocate. I accept that there is precedent for informing the First Minister of significant cases, and I welcome that the Lord Advocate is going to supply the Parliament with examples. However, I want to repeat the specifics of Jamie Greene’s question. Although I recognise that the Lord Advocate cannot comment on the specifics of a live case, I am keen to understand not why the First Minister was informed of the developments in this case—I understand that there is precedent for that—but why the detail of the £460,000 figure was included. If the Lord Advocate could explain why that detail was included in the update to the First Minister, I would certainly appreciate further clarification on that point.
I remind members to avoid mentioning specifics of the case.
The figure appears on the indictment, and it was, therefore, a figure that I was able to share.
As I have said, the fact is that, from the point at which the indictment was served, there was no limitation on its terms being made public, and the timing of my minute to the First Minister, after service of the indictment, reflected that.
It is important to say that I am answering to the Parliament today, but it really is not appropriate to comment on the substance of a live case beyond matters of process. I simply reiterate that it is critically important to protect this live case to ensure that, at the end of the day, justice is served.
I repeat the position, which is this: the key point is that the minute was sent after an independent prosecutor had taken a decision to indict the case. It was not an opportunity to influence this case at all. It was about informing of a significant development, which was, at that stage, entering the public domain. I was seeking to protect the process, because that is what, as Lord Advocate, I am required to do: uphold the rule of law and protect the process.
The Lord Advocate says that sharing details with the First Minister is normal. Does she, however, accept that now that the correspondence has been shared with the wider public just weeks before election, that risks undermining the confidence in the impartiality of the prosecution service.
I do not accept that, and I think that it is worth while looking back on how this all developed. The minute was sent—[Interruption.]
Let us be courteous. Let us hear one another in a courteous, respectful manner.
The minute was sent because of the significant development of the details of the indictment entering the public domain.
I sent the minute to ensure that we had a transparent process from which we could see that I had communicated the significant development to the First Minister. I ensured that it was made clear that independent prosecutors had been involved in the case and also that there were legal rules that restricted commentary. That is the whole purpose of sending it.
The fact that these questions are being asked here today, following the release of the minute, which resulted from a freedom of information request, is why the timing has come about—in terms of the forthcoming election. That is not of my making; it is the process that has been involved in the freedom of information request—[Interruption.]
Let us not shout.
It is the process that has been involved in the freedom of information request and the minute becoming available. That is how we are here now in terms of timing. The timing is not one that I have chosen. If that is the criticism, it is not down to me.
What is in no doubt is the importance of the separation of legal proceedings from the Government and politics. The importance of the independence of the Lord Advocate’s position is certainly clear. However, the Lord Advocate, if she was intimating the details on the basis that they were, in her words, “significant”, needs to explain how she defines that significance. That is critical to why it was relevant for the First Minister to know that information.
If this is a routine process that happens as a matter of course, the Lord Advocate appears, from her answers so far, to be indicating that she is unable to provide information on how many times it has occurred. Is that the case? Most critically, will she at least say when the last occasion was that she intimated the details of an indictment on a similar basis?
I have explained today that I can provide those details, and I will do so in writing after this evening. I do not have that information today. Because of the fundamental importance of protecting on-going live proceedings, it is critical for consideration to be applied appropriately to the information and, thereafter, for the information to be shared.
I have not said that I am unable to provide the information or that I am refusing to provide it. I am simply saying that, at this stage, standing here, I cannot give a full answer, but I will provide it in writing afterwards.
The member also asked how I characterise a significant development in a case. I characterise that as one that relates to a significant step in process. In this case, a significant step in process had taken place, because an independent prosecutor had decided that the indictment should be served. Therefore, in order to protect the process and the integrity of the proceedings, the information of the significant development was notified to the First Minister in the terms that are set out in the minute. It was reminding the Government to restrict commentary on what was a highly sensitive case. We know that because that is why we are here today. It is a highly sensitive case that requires to be prosecuted independently and fairly, and I am seeking to ensure that that is exactly what is delivered in such an important case.
Did the Lord Advocate share that information with what is, at the end of the day, a politically staffed office proactively and on her own volition, or was it specifically requested by the First Minister and/or by anyone in his office?
The update was shared after my advisers told me about the significant step in process, and the minute was sent to reflect that. I think that that is clear from the terms of the minute, which is public, and it was not requested.
The Lord Advocate has emphasised repeatedly that not only did she recuse herself from any involvement in the decision-making process in this particular case but she issued the minute in her name only because that was the fact and the indictment was settled. However, does she not agree with me that the terms of the indictment can be altered after service? That is trite law. Charges can be added with permission of the court and charges can be removed.
I am not making any allegations against the Lord Advocate, and I want to put on the record that, in my dealings with her, I have always found her to be someone of absolute integrity, but I have what I think is surely a legitimate question. Having recused herself, would it not at least have been prudent and politic, if an intimation was to be made to the First Minister, for that to have been made by the named senior prosecutor in charge of leading the case? Had that been done, the Lord Advocate probably would not have been here today facing a number of pretty obvious and serious questions to which the public are entitled to have direct answers.
Mr Ewing is correct about the process that follows on the service of an indictment. It is correct to say that charges can be amended and that they can be added to, in terms of narrative and the like. Mr Ewing is a well-qualified lawyer and he understands all the issues surrounding an indictment, its contents and the legal rules that apply to how it is processed during the course of a prosecution.
The contact with the First Minister was made by the Lord Advocate because it was appropriate for the Lord Advocate to clarify that I had no involvement in operational decisions and to reinforce the need for strict observance of the contempt of court principles. That protects the integrity of proceedings and public confidence.
Has the First Minister, anyone in the Government, or anyone connected to the Government ever asked to be kept informed about this case?
Not that I know of.
When did it become standard practice to notify the First Minister’s office under the Contempt of Court Act 1981?
I know that it is a long-standing process. I can get the details to the questioner without any difficulty. Examples can be given, dating back some significant time, and I am happy to share them—we can do that after today. I simply do not have the material here.
The reason why the word “significant” keeps being used in connection with this particular case is that it involves the Scottish National Party. When alleged criminality touches the governing party, even the perception of preferential access such as we are talking about—that is what it is—risks undermining public confidence in the independence of Scotland’s prosecution service. What steps will the Lord Advocate now take to ensure that public confidence is not further undermined in that way?
It was not preferential access. I did not brief the First Minister in relation to the prosecution of Mr Murrell or the contents of the indictment. The minute was simply a factual confirmation of the fact that Mr Murrell had been indicted, the nature of the charge and the value of the alleged embezzlement. From the point at which the indictment is served, there is no limit on its terms being made public.
I accept that it is a significant case, but the whole purpose of the intimation to the First Minister was because of the significant development of information entering the public domain at that point. I would just be repeating myself to say that the purpose in intimation was quite the opposite of what has been suggested—it was to ensure that the Government was reminded to restrict its commentary for good reason. That was, to protect the integrity of a significant and serious prosecution that has been taken up by independent prosecutors in the Crown Office.
That concludes the urgent question.
Air adhart
Business Motion