Douglas Ross: Peter Murrell adjournment ‘stinks’

The postponement of the court case of former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell until after the Scottish election “stinks”, Douglas Ross MSP has said.

Murrell is alleged to have embezzled £459,000 in party funds over 13 years, according to court papers.

The estranged husband of former first minister Nicola Sturgeon is alleged to have used SNP monies to purchase luxury items, including a campervan, cosmetics, and jewellery between August 2010 and January 2023. No plea or declaration has yet been made.

Murrell was expected to appear in court for a preliminary hearing this week, but the date has now shifted to May 25, falling after the Scottish Parliament election.

Speaking in parliament, Ross questioned whether “anyone who works for the Scottish Government, including ministers, special advisers or civil servants, was involved in discussions concerning” the delay.

When parliamentary business minister Graeme Dey answered that “there have been no discussions” and that the “scheduling of trials is a matter for the independent judiciary and the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service”, Ross said his question covers “almost 20 special advisers, almost 30 government ministers and over 9,000 civil servants”.

He questioned how Dey could give such an assurance, given those numbers.

Ross went on: “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. And does the minister not even realise or simply accept how bad this looks for his party?”

Dey said: “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.

“And I would reiterate, there have been no discussions of the nature that Mr Ross implied in his original question.”

Dey went on: “I take very seriously my responsibilities and the need to respect the processes that cover our justice system, and I am not going to be dragged into a toing and froing, particularly in the terms that Mr Ross uses so typically. I make absolutely clear, there is an independent process that is followed in all of these things, overseen by the Lord President. There have been no discussions of the type that the member suggests.”