Lord Advocate rejects misleading Holyrood as new papers reveal Swinney told of Murrell charge a year ago

While details of the allegations against Nicola Sturgeon's former husband only became public knowledge earlier this month, it emerged last week that Dorothy Bain KC had sent an email to the First Minister outlining the charge of embezzlement and the amount involved, in January.

However today it was revealed she gave details of the case to Mr Swinney, who is also the SNP leader, 10 months earlier in March 2025, despite being recused from dealing with the case because of its political nature.

The revelation came as the Lord Advocate wrote to the Presiding Officer with details of other legal cases in which there had been communications between her office - and that of her predecessors - and the office of First Minister, to show this was a common procedure.

And she rejected any accusation that she had misled Parliament when she said she wrote to the First Minsiter in January when the charge against Mr Murrell could become public at any time. The Crown Office refused to tell journalists of the indictment charges at the same time, saying it was not a public document.

The row around the whole affair also erupted in Parliament this evening when Scottish Conservative MSPs demanded Ms Bain be brought back to Holyrood to make another statement - leading to former party leader Douglas Ross being ordered from the Chamber for challenging the authority of the Presiding Officer, and refusing to go.

Both he and Russell Findlay are furious about the revelations that John Swinney had early sight of the charges brought against Peter Murrell, claiming that gave him "political advantage", something the First Minister denies.

The Lord Advocate had told MSPs last week she would lay out the occasions in which minutes or memos had been sent from her office to the First Minister, saying that writing to Mr Swinney about the Murrell case was not unusual.

The list supplied had 28 cases on it, including the Lockerbie bombing, the terror attack at Glasgow airport, the Glasgow bin lorry tragedy, the death of Sheku Bayoh, and the perjury trial of former Tory spin doctor Andy Coulson, which saw him cleared.

It did not contain any letters about major trials such as that of former First Minister Alex Salmond, or the prosecution against former owners of Rangers Football Club.

But it did show that the Lord Advocate had first written to Mr Swinney on March 20 2025, saying Crown counsel had decided Mr Murrell should appear in private in court "charged with embezzling over £460,000 from the SNP."

He stands accused of embezzling almost £460,000 from the SNP between August 2010 and January 2023. He had been expected to appear at the High Court in Glasgow for a preliminary hearing on February 20 but this was moved to May 25 at the High Court in Edinburgh.

The Lord Advocate had not revealed that letter to MSPs during her statement in Holyrood.

Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay said the new information - published by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), showed "sleekit Swinney" was getting "secret information" about the "highly sensitive" case against Murrell.

And Labour said the "bombshell documents raise far more questions than they answer for John Swinney and his Government."

Scottish Labour deputy leader Dame Jackie Baillie claimed the SNP Government "is drowning in sleaze and cover-ups."

She added: "John Swinney received crucial information almost a year ago, while journalists and the public were kept in the dark."

The Tories are now demanding Ms Bain - who as the senior legal adviser to ministers is also part of the Scottish Cabinet - must return to Holyrood to answer questions from MSPs.

Russell Findlay said: "It's shocking to now discover that the Lord Advocate tipped off John Swinney about details of the highly sensitive criminal case against Nicola Sturgeon's husband almost a year ago.

"While she gave Mr Swinney this dubious private briefing, the Crown Office was refusing to provide the same details to the public and the media who were kept in the dark.

"Sleekit Swinney should explain why he failed to come clean about getting this information almost a year ago.

"And when the Lord Advocate was being questioned in Parliament last week, why did she not come clean about her previous disclosure?

"This bombshell revelation adds to the existing stink and now explains why Mr Swinney has become increasingly shrill in his desperate attempts to deflect attention.

"The Lord Advocate must return to Parliament and give a full statement and straight answers to many outstanding questions."

Dame Jackie meanwhile said: "John Swinney received crucial information almost a year ago, while journalists and the public were kept in the dark.

"The people of Scotland deserve transparency from our Government and they need to know that all criminal cases are handled impartially and without political interference.

"The Lord Advocate must explain why she told John Swinney information that the Crown Office refused to make public, and well before any indictment was concluded."

She also said the First Minister "must come clean and tell us why he was given this information and whether he or his Government applied pressure on our justice system to ensure he was clued up on this case".

In her letter to the Presiding Officer, the Lord Advocate said she had not misled Parliament - but that the process of sharing material with the government needed to be "more robust" and she had "instructed the Crown Office to formalise their processes into a policy which will be published on their website."

She added: "I have been criticised for saying the terms of the indictment can become public at any time after service. I did not mislead parliament After service of an indictment, its terms can be made public at any time including by an accused person.

"After service of the indictment, COPFS lose complete control and its terms can enter the public domain at the initiative of others, as happened in this case. It is for this reason that notification to the government takes place at the point in the process at which the information can become public without any legal restriction.

"Any suggestion that I have acted inappropriately or have misled Parliament in this matter is entirely baseless. I have demonstrated the appropriate basis for my communication with the First Minister and Parliament."

But Tory MSP Douglas Ross spoke out in Holyrood to demand a new statement from the Lord Advocate.

He said: "For almost a year the only person not involved in this criminal trial to have information about the scale of alleged embezzlement was Scotland's First Minister and the leader of the SNP.

"Why did the Lord Advocate feel the need to provide that information to the SNP leader in March of last year, and then again in January this year?

"We need to hear from the Lord Advocate in this chamber to answer these questions."

He told parliamentary business minister Graeme Dey that if he does not agree to a statement, he would "stand up here every day until the Government concede".

Mr Dey however made clear to MSPs he had "no intention" of scheduling a statement by the Lord Advocate on Tuesday.

He told Mr Ross if he wants a statement, he should raise the issue with the Parliament's business managers.

Speaking about the information made public by the Crown, he added: "Last week the Lord Advocate undertook to provide further information for this Parliament, she does this today, extensive information, fulfilling her commitment, and she is pilloried again by Douglas Ross."

Later, Russell Findlay raised the question again of the Lord Advocate being brought back to Holyrood.

Addressing the Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone, he said: "John Swinney, his government and the LA think we should all go away quietly and forget about it, but we won't. This is about parliamentary scrutiny and governemnt accountability, Can you please tell me what methods are available to compell the Lord Advocate to provide a full statement to this Parliament?"

Ms Johnstone outlined the procedure for asking for a statement - before Tory MSP Douglas Ross then asked her why she interrupted Conservative members making points of order and not SNP members.

She told him challenging the chair was not appropriate, and that she was impartial - to which he replied "you're not."

'I ask you to withdraw that," she said. 'it's simply not appropriate you challenge the decisions and authority of the chair"

"I will withdraw them, even if I believe them" he said - with the PO asking him to leave the Chambner.

However Douglas Ross refused to move - and there is now speculation he could be suspended until the end of the parliamentary term unless he apologises.

On release of the list Crown agent John Logue, chief executive of COPFS and Scotland's most senior professional prosecutor, said: "The Lord Advocate has updated Parliament in line with the commitment she gave last week.

"Throughout, she and all prosecutors involved have acted in accordance with their legal duties.

"It is now important that the legal processes are allowed to run their course, so that the issues can be determined fairly and properly in court.

"The Lord Advocate has reiterated that she exercises her authority independently of any other person, and that there is a live case before the courts which must not be put at risk of prejudice."

Speaking about the Murrell case, a COPFS spokesperson said: "Scotland's prosecutors act independently and in the public interest in all cases.

"COPFS understand there is significant interest in this matter, which is active under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

"The provisions of this Act protect the integrity of proceedings, preserve access to justice for victims, and secure the rights of people accused of crime.

"Anyone publishing items about active cases is advised to exercise caution as material must not be commentary or analysis of evidence, witnesses or accused. Contempt of Court carries penalties of up to two years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.

"The Lord Advocate and Solicitor General were not involved in decisions on this case."