NICOLA Sturgeon is not likely to face any charges under the Police Scotland probe into SNP finances, a top Scottish KC has said.
Thomas Leonard Ross, a criminal defence lawyer and former president of the Scottish Bar Association, also said he did not expect to see any charges brought against Colin Beattie, the former treasurer of the SNP.
Both Beattie and Sturgeon were arrested, questioned, and released without charge in 2023 as part of the ongoing Operation Branchform, which has seen police investigate what happened to some £600,000 raised by the SNP to fight a second independence campaign.
Peter Murrell, Sturgeon’s husband who worked as the SNP’s chief executive for 22 years from 2001, was charged in connection with allegations of embezzlement in April 2024 – almost three years after the probe began in July 2021.
Ross said that he would have expected charges to have been brought against Beattie and Sturgeon at the same time as Murrell, if they were ever to be brought at all.
The KC told The National: “In a big case like this, there's no doubt that the police won't be doing anything significant without clearing it with the Crown Office.
“That makes me suspicious that, when the question came up in April 2024 – when Police Scotland were asking the question in April 2024 ‘can we charge Peter Murrell?’ – then somebody must have asked the question, ‘if we're going to charge him, can we charge Colin Beattie and Nicola Sturgeon?’
“What we take from that – without knowing anything about the evidential basis of the decision – is that the prosecution thought he should be charged and Mr Beattie and Ms Sturgeon shouldn't be charged.
“In so far as there are already indications, I don't think they're getting charged for anything. I think it will just be proceedings against Mr Murrell.”
“To get convicted, it would have to be proved that you were acting dishonestly and essentially taking funds that were intended for purpose X and using them for purpose Y,” he said.
“They’re jailing single mothers for £20,000 worth of benefit fraud. You can’t be sending people to jail for £20,000 and not for half a million. You lose any credibility. So aye, it’s jail for that.”
The KC further said that time is running down for prosecutors to bring Murrell to court – saying that he could have a defence if the trial doesn’t begin for years.
Noting that Murrell was charged in April, he said: “If you're looking for signposts, that's a signpost.
“That's significant because he has definitely been charged, which means that he now has a right to a trial within a reasonable time. The clock is definitely running so far as he's concerned.”
He went on: “It may also be running in relation to [Sturgeon and Beattie]. Although it doesn't seem that they were charged, they were, as I understand it, interviewed.
“If the police gave them notice that they were suspected of having committed a criminal offence, which is the usual situation when you're interviewed, then it may be that there are time implications in respect of all three.”
The KC explained that, under the European Convention on Human Rights and UK 1998 Human Rights Act, Murrell is “entitled to trial within a reasonable time”.
While this is open to interpretation, with more complex issues taking longer, Ross said this could give Murrell a defence.
“If he ended up in court on January 1, 2025, then he would have to be back at court, with formal charges in writing, by June 1, 2026.
“If you plead not guilty at that stage, then the trial would probably be about a year after that, so in about June 2027.”
He went on: “It's not accurate to say, so far as Mr Murrell is concerned, that it can go on forever.
“The prosecution know if they take too long to prosecute him, whenever the case comes to court, he can argue, ‘well, I can't get a fair trial any longer because you delayed in bringing the case to court’.
“We’re nowhere near that now, but the Crown needs to be alive to it … If we were sent up to court in April 2027, he could argue that by then it's too long.”
However, the KC said Murrell’s lawyers would have to argue the delay case at his first appearance in court – which could be years before the trial actually begins, making it less likely.
“The Crown, what they often do is they will just serve the papers in the knowledge there's no way the defence can be ready,” Ross said.
“That gives you a problem because as the defence lawyer, you can't on the one hand ask for the case to be put back and at the same time argue that it's going to take too long.”
Asked about the length of time that Operation Branchform has been ongoing, Ross said it was “longer than most investigations that you come across – but it's quite hard to compare it with anything in Scotland because there's never really been anything like this before”.
And asked if it could still be going during the 2026 Holyrood election, Ross said it might – which would be “unfortunate” because of what the public may think.
“That's one of the consequences of the investigation taking so long,” he added.
