Nicola Sturgeon’s solicitor defends ‘no comment’ police interview after arrest

Nicola Sturgeon’s lawyer has defended her answering “no comment” to detectives after she was arrested and questioned in relation to Police Scotland’s investigation into its probe of the SNP’s finances.  

Following a report by The Scottish Sun, which said the former first minister “sat in silence for hours” following her arrest on 11 June 2023, her solicitor Aamer Anwar said the response was “standard advice offered on a regular basis in our jurisdiction”.  

He also rejected claims that the response hindered the investigation.  

“In relation to the advice tendered to Ms Sturgeon to make no comment, this was by her solicitor, formerly a very senior Crown counsel at Crown Office,” Anwar said. 

He added it was “deeply worrying” that Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay described her “right to silence” as a “tactic of organised crime”.  

Anwar said that Sturgeon had later provided Police Scotland with a “detailed written response” to its questions.  

Operation Branchform resulted in the conviction of Sturgeon’s estranged husband and former chief executive of the party, Peter Murrell, for embezzlement.  

Sturgeon and SNP MSP and former party treasurer Colin Beattie were both questioned in relation to the investigation but were released without charge. In March last year, Police Scotland also confirmed it had dropped its investigation into both Beattie and Sturgeon.  

“The idea that a highly resourced inquiry was hampered by a no comment interview is nonsensical,” Anwar said. 

“Had there been any evidence whatsoever of criminality against Ms Sturgeon, there can be no doubt that this gold-plated investigation would have led to Ms Sturgeon being charged and prosecuted. 

“To make it abundantly clear it was not the role of the first minister to sign off accounts – that was for the party treasurer. 

“There appears to be an assumption that as FM, when Mr Murrell was busy buying multiple pens or pepper pots etc she was with him; Ms Sturgeon was not as unsurprisingly she was busy with other matters.” 

On Monday, Murrell admitted that he had embezzled over £400,000 from the party over 12 years during a hearing in Edinburgh. He was remanded in custody and will be sentenced next month.    

Scottish Labour has said John Swinney has “a moral obligation to tell the public exactly what he knew and when about these missing funds”, as he was leader of the party when Murrell was appointed chief executive in 2001 and was deputy first minister when the offences were taking place.  

Calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the events, deputy leader Jackie Baillie said: “If he claims he was not aware, he should explain why not a single person within the SNP leadership had the faintest curiosity to ask about that ringfenced money. 

“There are also serious, outstanding questions about why it took Police Scotland several years to complete Operation Branchform. 

“And there must be clarity over why the Crown Office deemed it appropriate to tip off the Scottish Government about Nicola Sturgeon not facing charges - and indeed, why Murrell's hearing was pushed back until after the Scottish Parliament election. 

“These are serious questions, and it is why it is right to have a parliamentary inquiry into this affair. 

“A parliamentary inquiry will get to the truth and help to restore trust in politics. 

“The SNP cannot be trusted to be honest. If they have nothing to hide, they must come before a Parliamentary inquiry and answer these questions.” 

The Scottish Conservatives have renewed calls for the Crown Office to publish the reasons why no charges were brought against Nicola Sturgeon – a request the party originally made in March last year.  

Yesterday, the first minister rejected those calls.  

Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay said: “Faith in the integrity of Scotland’s justice system has been shattered by this epic SNP scandal which reaches into the heart of government. 

“The Lord Advocate has a duty to publish the reasons why only one person was prosecuted and whether Police Scotland agreed with that decision.”

Speaking to the media this morning, when asked if he would appear before a Holyrood committee if it decided it wanted to hold an inquiry into matter, Swinney said: “I don’t think there is the need for a Holyrood inquiry, there has been a police inquiry, what more do we need to look into?  

“There has been criminality involved here, and that criminality has been addressed in the courts. I don’t think it’s appropriate for there to be a Holyrood inquiry, because what can a Holyrood inquiry do that a detailed police investigation has just done.  

“I think it is just an example of the politicisation of what are examples of criminality, and we should respect the decisions of the police, the courts, and all that’s involved in that to ensure criminality is addressed.”  

He added: “The SNP has undertaken its own governance review, and I am confident that we have in place strong and robust governance procedures, that I preside over as party leader, that provides all the necessary assurance that the SNP is a well governed party.”