The High Court hearing for Peter Murrell, former chief executive of the Scottish National Party and estranged husband of Nicola Sturgeon, has been postponed until after the Holyrood election. The preliminary hearing was moved from February 20 to May 25, prompting political scrutiny over the timing of the decision.
Murrell faces accusations of embezzling funds from the SNP between August 2010 and January 2023. The hearing will now take place at the High Court in Edinburgh instead of Glasgow. The postponement emerged on Friday, placing the case firmly into the post-election period.
Swinney Declines Comment
First Minister John Swinney refused to address the postponement during an election campaign stop in South Queensferry near Edinburgh on Saturday. He told the Press Association: «The courts make their own judgments, and this is a live legal case and I'm not going to comment on it.» He added: «This is a live legal case, and it has to take its course, and it requires no comment from me.»
Swinney used the campaign event to highlight SNP achievements, displaying loveheart-shaped signs with other party politicians. He told reporters: «When there is such chaos at Westminster, the SNP Government is delivering for the people of Scotland with, this week, an announcement of the freezing of rail fares and the opening of the first GP walk-in clinic.» He contrasted this with what he described as a divided Labour Party and chaos in Westminster.
Conservatives Demand Clarity
The Scottish Conservatives questioned the timing of the postponement. A spokesman told The Times: «Eyebrows will be raised by the postponement of the court hearing for Nicola Sturgeon's husband until after the Holyrood election. The authorities must come clean as to who made this decision and why.»
The Crown Office, Scotland's prosecution service, described the adjournment as a «routine procedural matter» that «does not represent development in the case.» The office emphasized its independence, stating that the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General, who are part of the Scottish Government, were not involved in the case.
Contempt of court provisions are now active for the case, prohibiting «commentary or analysis of evidence, witnesses or accused» in published material. These legal restrictions limit public discussion of the case details as it progresses through the court system.
Note: This article was created with Artificial Intelligence (AI).
