An activist whose complaint sparked Operation Branchform has demanded prosecutors reveal the full details of a plea deal agreed with Peter Murrell before he pled guilty to a £400,000 embezzlement. Sean Clerkin has written to the Crown Office to question why such a deal was needed at all when the evidence against Nicola Sturgeon's estranged husband was "so strong against him."
Background of the Case
Murrell, 61, pled guilty last month to stealing more than £400,000 of funds from the SNP during his employment as the party's chief executive. He will be sentenced on June 23. He spent the cash on a string of luxury purchases over a 10-year period including a motorhome, a Jaguar car, jewellery, a £3,000 lawnmower, several Montblanc pens and high-end kitchenware.
Timing and Charges Questioned
Prosecutors and the court service have since faced questions over the timing of Murrell's crucial court hearing, which was originally meant to take place in February but was pushed back until after the Holyrood election on May 7. Murrell was originally charged with embezzling more than £460,000 but the total was reduced after a string of purchases were dropped from his final charge sheet. These included a range of women's items including knickers, make-up, hairspray and fitness gear.
Russell Findlay, the leader of the Scottish Tories, has said the principle of "crime should not pay must apply to Nicola Sturgeon who reaped the rewards of her husband's industrial-scale thefts over many years. Every stolen penny – including the collection of purloined Montblanc pens – must be seized under proceeds of crime laws." Sturgeon has previously claimed that some of the items her estranged husband bought with embezzled money were birthday or Christmas presents.
Activist's Demands
In a letter to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) seen by the Record, Clerkin asked: "Is it the case that the £59,735 worth of goods was also removed from the charge sheet to spare Nicola Sturgeon any embarrassment? Is it the case that other embarrassing items were deleted from the charges and what were they? Why did COPFS enter into a plea deal with Peter Murrell when the evidence was so strong against him? I believe that there needs to complete transparency and accountability here as the court of public opinion is demanding answers to the above questions and they need to be answered now."
Crown Office Response
A COPFS spokeswoman told the Record: "Following an investigation into SNP finances, criminality was identified and has been prosecuted. Correspondence received will be responded to in due course." They added: "The Crown carefully considers any plea tendered. A plea reflects the criminality the accused is prepared to accept responsibility for, and prosecutors must determine independently whether accepting that plea is in the public interest. In this case, the plea involved a clear recognition of guilt and secured a conviction for criminal conduct. The charge to which the accused has pled guilty captures the key elements of the offending and provides a proper basis for the judge to proceed to sentencing. The decision to accept the plea reflects an independent professional judgment that it was in the public interest to do so."
