Peter Murrell prosecution briefing

“I recognise the significant public and media interest in this case. It is understandable that people wanted more information at earlier stages, but it would not have been appropriate to comment in detail while the criminal investigation and court proceedings were ongoing.

“As in all cases, prosecutors had to protect the investigation and act fairly to everyone involved. Criminal cases require careful, evidence-led preparation and decisions reached through normal legal processes.

“The indictment in this case was served well in advance of the applicable statutory time limits. Decisions about the case were taken independently by prosecutors and Crown Counsel, applying the law to the evidence, and not by reference to political interests.”

John Logue
Crown Agent
23 June 2026

Investigative and prosecutorial roles

Police Scotland and COPFS have different functions in the criminal justice system but work closely together. Police Scotland investigate allegations of criminal offending and gather evidence. COPFS is Scotland’s sole independent public prosecution authority. COPFS work with the police on investigations, providing legal guidance where required and assessing whether further enquiries are necessary before decisions can be taken.

Both are concerned with dealing with criminal offending. The criminal justice system does not exist to resolve every issue of public concern or every matter of controversy. Criminal proceedings need evidence that the law may have been broken. Without that evidence, no action can properly be taken through the criminal courts.

Case team and senior oversight

COPFS allocated a dedicated team of four procurator fiscal deputes and three paralegal case preparers to work exclusively on this case. This ensured focused expertise and consistent handling of the evidence.

A case management panel provided oversight by senior legal managers, including a legal director. That panel reviewed progress against strategy, considered casework risks and mitigation, and kept the level of resourcing under review as the demands of the case developed.

How decisions were taken

The COPFS team prepared the case and reported to Crown Counsel for them to issue instructions. In this case, Crown Counsel were King’s Counsel.

As an additional measure, the instruction to prosecute Peter Murrell and the police assessment regarding Nicola Sturgeon and Colin Beattie were considered separately by a second independent KC, who reached the same conclusion.

Decisions were therefore taken through the normal legal processes with senior oversight and independent review.

Start of the police investigation

A complaint about possible mismanagement of SNP finances was first made to Police Scotland in March 2021. Other complaints followed and, in response, the police began to investigate. During that investigation, evidence of embezzlement by Peter Murrell was identified and became the subject of further enquiry.

Search warrants and recovery of evidence

Search warrants are a routine investigative tool used to obtain evidence lawfully. They are granted by a sheriff and allow police to search premises and seize specified items. Before an application is made, prosecutors must be satisfied that the warrant sought is necessary, properly focused and supported by reasonable grounds.

In this case, Police Scotland and COPFS worked together on applications relating to the accused’s home address, the driveway of his mother’s home address and SNP HQ. The requests were submitted by Police Scotland to COPFS on 20 March 2023 ahead of a police day of action planned for 5 April 2023. Crown Counsel instructed that applications should be made, and a sheriff granted the warrants on 3 April 2023 for execution on 5 April 2023.

Additional orders were obtained during the investigation to secure material held by banking institutions in Scotland and England, retailers in England, HMRC and organisations holding SNP accounting information.

Police reports and further prosecutorial investigation

Police submitted a standard prosecution report (SPR) for Peter Murrell on 23 May 2024. In Scotland, an SPR is the document by which police set out to COPFS information for consideration of whether a person should be prosecuted. The report in this case contained a single charge of embezzlement with a date range from 1 January 2016 to 13 January 2023.

On 9 August 2024, police submitted a request for advice and guidance concerning Nicola Sturgeon and Colin Beattie. This was not a report seeking the consideration of prosecution. Police did not charge and sought the Crown’s view on the evidence, and whether there were further enquiries required.

The police did not report anyone for consideration of prosecution for the crime of fraud.

Once the SPR had been received, prosecutors undertook further investigation. This is a routine part of serious case preparation and involves detailed consideration of the evidence, identification of any gaps, and requests for further work by police where necessary before a final prosecutorial decision is taken.

Assessing the evidence

The evidential assessment in this case was extensive. Prosecutors considered 516 witness statements and a large volume of documentary and digital material, including data sources containing tens of thousands of files spanning an extended period.

The SPR contained a single charge of embezzlement, but within that charge there were hundreds of potentially criminal purchases. For each purchase, prosecutors required evidence that SNP funds had been used, documentation showing what had been bought, the retailer involved, and accounting material capable of showing how the purchase had been recorded within SNP finances.

Further work was also required to establish the earliest criminal transactions and the full value of the embezzlement. That led prosecutors back beyond the original date range in the police report and ultimately to offending beginning in August 2010.

The accused’s phone also required examination by Police Scotland’s cybercrime unit to assess whether it contained evidence relevant to the case. Because it was asserted that the device contained legally privileged material (communications between the accused and his solicitor) an independent commissioner, who was a KC from the Faculty of Advocates, oversaw the examination to ensure that any such material was not seen by police or prosecutors.

Preparing the case also required detailed checking of productions for admissibility and certification, making digital material compatible with court systems, obtaining evidence from overseas retailers through International Letters of Request, and carrying out disclosure and redaction so that only relevant material was shared and personal information was protected.

Decision to commence proceedings

The investigation by Police Scotland, together with the further investigation undertaken by COPFS, formed the basis of a report submitted to Crown Counsel by the COPFS team. That report ran to 542 pages and set out the evidence in detail.

Having considered all of the material, Crown Counsel instructed that Peter Murrell should be prosecuted for embezzlement. Crown Counsel also agreed that Nicola Sturgeon and Colin Beattie should not be charged, and that no further enquiries were required in respect of them.

As an additional safeguard, those conclusions were considered independently and separately by another KC, who reached the same view.
A petition warrant was thereafter prepared and granted by a sheriff, marking the commencement of proceedings.

How the charge was selected

In every case, prosecutors assess the available evidence against the legal tests for any offence which may apply in the circumstances. Any charge brought must reflect criminal conduct supported by evidence.

In this case, Crown Counsel concluded that the evidence supported a charge of embezzlement, reflecting the alleged misuse of funds entrusted to the accused. That conclusion was independently considered by the reviewing KC, who reached the same view.

Petition and first court appearance

Serious crimes in Scotland are tried before a jury under solemn procedure. The first step in solemn procedure is to place a person on petition. That involves a sheriff issuing a petition warrant for the person to appear in court where they are informed of the criminal allegations they face. Petition proceedings are held in private in order to protect the rights of the accused and the integrity of further evidential work.

Peter Murrell appeared in private at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 20 March 2025. Once that appearance had concluded, COPFS provided the media with the standard outline information about the charge faced.

Preparation after petition

After petition, prosecutors prepared the case for possible trial. That work included setting out how each part of the case would be proved by reference to witnesses and productions, effecting disclosure to the defence, preparing a draft indictment and a draft statement of uncontroversial evidence, and compiling witness and production schedules. A production is an item of evidence in a case, such as a document, object, video or photograph. 

The draft indictment included schedules of purchases said to have been made by the accused using SNP funds. Those schedules ran to 118 pages and contained more than a thousand purchases, many of which involved multiple items. Before any purchase could be included, prosecutors had to be satisfied that it could be proved in court by reference to financial records, supporting documentation and witness evidence.

Service of indictment

Under the time-bar regime applying when Peter Murrell was placed on petition, the Crown had until July 2026 to indict the case. In this case, the indictment was served on 19 January 2026, well in advance of the applicable statutory time limit.

A statement of uncontroversial evidence amounting to 318 pages was prepared and served on 4 February 2026. It set out the Crown case in writing by reference to productions and witnesses, including verified entries for each purchase line.

Preliminary hearing and plea discussions

A preliminary hearing is not the start of a trial. It is the stage at which the court is informed of the parties’ state of preparation and the extent to which evidence is disputed or capable of agreement. In larger cases, preliminary hearings may be postponed where further preparation is required.

In this case, the first preliminary hearing, originally scheduled for 20 February 2026, was administratively adjourned to 25 May 2026 by way of a Section 75A minute presented jointly by Crown Counsel and defence counsel. The application reflected the scale of the indictment and the statement of uncontroversial evidence which had recently been provided to the accused. It would not have been in the interests of justice for the Crown to oppose a motion to adjourn where the defence was not ready. The motion was granted by a High Court judge.

On 3 March 2026, the accused instructed his legal representatives to explore resolution of the case by way of a guilty plea. Discussions continued over the following weeks because of the length of the schedules and the detail of the plea ultimately agreed. On 21 May 2026 the accused confirmed to the Crown that he would plead guilty.

The Crown considered the plea offered and accepted that it secured a conviction for serious criminal conduct and provided a proper basis for sentencing without the need for a trial. On 25 May 2026, amendments were made to the schedule of purchases, and the charge remained one of embezzlement. The court then adjourned until 2 June 2026 for preparation of a joint narrative of events.

Narrative of agreed facts

On 2 June 2026, the advocate depute read the agreed narrative into the public record in court. The narrative now forms the agreed factual basis of the criminal case. Information gathered during the investigation which was not included in the narrative was not proved in court and therefore does not enter the public domain as established fact.

The narrative records that the total sum of money which Peter Murrell misused, and thereby embezzled, was £400,310.65. The source of those funds was the party’s principal bank account over which the accused had control. The money within that account came principally from membership fees and donations paid by party members and other donors, and legacies.

Sentencing and next steps

COPFS does not routinely comment on sentencing decisions taken by judges. Separate steps will follow under the management of the court in relation to the proceeds of crime and to items which were purchased with embezzled funds.

Why public comment was limited during the case

While criminal investigations and court proceedings are ongoing, there are strict limits on what can properly be said in public. Those limits exist to protect the integrity of proceedings, ensure fairness to those involved and respect judicial processes.

For that reason, public comment during this case was confined to information that could appropriately be said at the relevant stage of proceedings. Once matters were aired in open court and fully concluded with sentence passed, more information could properly be given about the processes followed.

Role of the Law Officers

The Lord Advocate is head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. That constitutional role carries overall responsibility for those systems, but not operational involvement in every case.
In this case, the investigation and prosecutorial decisions were made by prosecutors and Crown Counsel through established legal processes. Law Officers were not involved in those decisions.

Communication at key public stages

In significant cases, limited factual updates may be provided at key procedural stages to those with wider responsibilities. Such updates are confined to matters of fact and do not involve operational decision-making about the handling of the case.

In this case, factual information was provided at key stages following the petition appearance, service of the indictment and the guilty plea. 

In keeping with normal practice, information may also be provided in advance of public court proceedings to legal representatives of affected parties or to victims, where appropriate.

In this case, the SNP’s solicitor was advised on Friday 22 May 2026, in advance of the hearing on Monday 25 May 2026, that Peter Murrell was expected to plead guilty. This reflected routine engagement by COPFS with legal representatives ahead of a significant court development.

This case involved detailed investigation, extensive evidential review and substantial preparation before court proceedings could be started. Decisions were taken through established legal processes by COPFS prosecutors and Crown Counsel, with independent review by a second KC. Court procedure and timetabling were matters for the judiciary. This note is intended to help the public understand the process followed and the safeguards in place.