Demand for answers after John Swinney ‘tipped off’ about Peter Murrell case

The Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour have demanded answers over why John Swinney received detailed information of charges against Peter Murrell before it was made public.

The former chief executive of the SNP is accused of embezzling more than £450,000 from the party over a period of 12 years.

Details of the charges against him were made public on 13 February – but the first minister was made aware of the charges on 19 January by Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain, according to The Scottish Sun.

Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay has urged Bain to “spell out” her reasons for providing a “tip off” to Swinney.

And Scottish Labour’s Anas Sarwar was now written directly too Bain seeking answers about the “propriety of the communication”.

Murrell’s preliminary hearing was meant to take place this Friday but has been postponed until late May.

That prompted Douglas Ross to raise the matter in parliament on Tuesday, saying that “it 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”.

But government minister Graeme Dey said that “scheduling of trials is a matter for the independent judiciary and the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service”.

The fact ministers were given advance knowledge of the charges has raised more questions about the role of the Lord Advocate, who both heads up the prosecution service and is a member of the government.

Bain has recused herself from decisions relating to the police investigation, codenamed Operation Branchform, or the subsequent court case.

However, the Sun reported that a briefing was sent via email to the first minister from Bain’s private secretary.

That email was then forward by an official in Swinney’s office to his chief of staff, Colin McAllister, and senior civil servant John Webster.

Members of the media were given the initial date of the preliminary hearing that same afternoon but were not then provided with details of the charges.

Findlay said: “The Lord Advocate must spell out why she felt it was right to tip off John Swinney about details of charges against Nicola Sturgeon’s husband.

“Why were the public kept in the dark while John Swinney was given a detailed private briefing which he then shared with civil servants and SNP spin doctors? An SNP minister has already denied any government meddling around delays to the case, but these new revelations will only fuel public suspicion and concern.”

In his letter to Bain, Sarwar wrote: “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.”

Labour MSP Michael Marra has secured an urgent question on the matter, to be taken in the chamber this afternoon. The timing of the question is to be confirmed.

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “It would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to comment on live criminal proceedings.”