New details emerge over Lord Advocate's Murrell memos to John Swinney
The issue of who was told what, when and why over Peter Murrell’s indictment for fraud have plagued the Lord Advocate
Fresh details of the timeline over memos sent to the First Minister about the criminal case against former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell have emerged.
The Lord Advocate has admitted she did know of an earlier briefing memo to John Swinney but did not inform parliament of the fact.
Dorothy Bain told Mr Swinney details of the alleged fraud case on two occasions - in March 2025 and in January 2026.
However, when called to answer questions from MSPs on February 18 this year, Ms Bain only mentioned the latter communication.
At another appearance in parliament a week later, Ms Bain said she had not seen the second memo and so did not raise it with MSPs.
Now, in a letter Ms Bain sent in reply to queries from the MSP Stephen Kerr, she says she was in fact briefed by officials on the March 25 note.
However, as this briefing by Crown Office staff occurred only on her way into the debating chamber, she chose not to mention it.
Mr Kerr said: “At its heart, this comes down to the fact that the Lord Advocate did not give Parliament the full picture.
“What she said on February 18 shaped how members understood the situation, but it left out a key piece of information - the March 2025 minute - which she now accepts she knew about before she went into the chamber.
“That leaves a clear gap between what she says she knew at the time and how she chose to present the facts to Parliament.
“She didn’t tell us everything she knew and gave a misleading impression.”
The Lord Advocate, however, said there was only a “short time” to prepare before being called to answer parliamentarians.
Her written briefing, she went on, did not include reference to the March 2025 minute.
She told Mr Kerr: “I was reminded verbally by officials of the March 2025 minute just as I was going to the Chamber, and I was also advised that its contents had not yet been reviewed by officials familiar with the investigation.
“This step was essential for me to be reassured that I said nothing which could potentially prejudice proceedings.
“I therefore could not advise the chamber of the March 2025 minute at that stage but did undertake to update Parliament at the earliest opportunity.”
The situation has led to calls for the dual role of the Lord Advocate to be separated.
Opposition leaders said the SNP had been given “political advantage” in Mr Swinney learning in advance both the fact that criminal charges had been dropped in connection to SNP MSPs Nicola Sturgeon and Colin Beattie, and the amount of the alleged fraud.
Ms Bain’s letter also sets out that her office “carries responsibilities that are complex and require careful judgment and constant fidelity to the rule of law.
“These responsibilities may not always lend themselves easily to parliamentary examination in the context of an urgent question.”
Ms Bain added: “I recognise that information in this matter has emerged sequentially rather than in a single account.
“That reflects the nature and timing of the circumstances and not any reluctance on my part to ensure that Parliament fully and properly understands how I discharge my responsibilities.”
Mr Murrell is facing a charge of embezzling almost £460,000 from the SNP over a 12-year period.
He has made no plea and is due to appear in court on May 25.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.