A political storm is brewing over a memo, and it's raising questions about the role of Scotland's top legal advisor. Joanna Cherry, a prominent advocate and former SNP MP, has called out the Lord Advocate for providing a 'laughable' explanation regarding a memo sent to the First Minister about the indictment of Peter Murrell, the former SNP chief executive.
But here's where it gets controversial: Cherry argues that this incident highlights the need to reform the dual role of the Lord Advocate, who serves as both the head of the prosecution service and the government's chief legal advisor. This unique position has sparked debates about potential conflicts of interest.
The memo in question was sent by Dorothy Bain KC, the Lord Advocate, to the First Minister in January, warning about contempt of court risks in the case against Murrell. The indictment accused Murrell of embezzling a staggering £460,000 from the party over 13 years, a figure that was made public by The Scottish Sun in February.
The Lord Advocate's memo was then shared with other government members, including the First Minister's chief of staff, Colin McAllister, who is a political appointee. However, the public was kept in the dark about the charges for several weeks.
Cherry, writing in The Sunday Times, pointed out inconsistencies in the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate's statements. While the Crown Office initially told journalists that the indictment was not a public document, the Lord Advocate later insisted it was, justifying her decision to inform John Swinney of its details. This contradiction has fueled demands for clarity.
Cherry praised Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, for raising crucial questions. She recounted the Lord Advocate's explanation in Parliament, where she claimed the memo was sent to remind ministers not to comment on an ongoing criminal case. However, Cherry questioned the timing and necessity of the memo, especially given the First Minister's public statements about not discussing live cases.
The controversy deepened when, just days after The Scottish Sun published the charges, the Crown Office contradicted its earlier statement, saying the indictment was not a public document until presented in open court. Cherry emphasized that this confusion requires immediate clarification.
Cherry also noted the stark difference in how the Crown handled the prosecution of Murrell compared to other cases. She pointed out that while details of the charges against Alex Salmond were made public when he was indicted, the Crown refused to reveal any specifics about the charges against Murrell, despite media inquiries.
The connection between Murrell and the current government, as the former husband of a First Minister and a friend to many in power, adds a layer of complexity. Cherry argues that this warrants a thorough examination of the handling of the case.
The Scottish Government is reviewing the role of Scotland's law officers, and Keir Starmer has previously signaled support for change. However, the position is protected by the Scotland Act and can only be altered by Westminster.
Cherry's efforts to separate the dual roles through a private member's bill were halted when she lost her seat in the 2024 general election. The Crown Office, while acknowledging the sensitivity of the case, promises to keep Parliament informed, leaving the public awaiting further updates and answers to the questions raised.
