The Lord Advocate has denied claims of political corruption after it emerged she shared details of the ongoing legal case against Peter Murrell with First Minister John Swinney.
During a tense appearance in Holyrood on Wednesday afternoon, Dorothy Bain said she was not considering her position, and contended she had not provided the SNP with "preferential access" to case information.
Mr Murrell, the SNP's former chief executive, is accused of embezzling almost £460,000 from the party over a period of 13 years.
Ms Bain told MSPs: "I did not brief the First Minister in relation to the prosecution of Mr Murrell or the contents of the indictment.
“My minute was a factual confirmation that Mr Murrell had been indicted and the nature of the charge, including the value of the alleged embezzlement.”
Details of the indictment against Murrell were not published until February 13.
However, The Sun newspaper reported that Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain wrote to John Swinney on January 19 about the case.
The letter informs Mr Swinney that the case was active under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and warns him to refrain from comment.
Ms Bain added: "The minute was sent after an independent prosecutor had taken a decision in the case. It is not an opportunity to influence, it is only information and for the protection of the process.
"The communication to the First Minister was provided after the indictment was served, at a point where there was no limitation on its terms being made public by the accused.”
Opposition parties repeatedly hit out at Ms Bain's role in providing the correspondence with Mr Swinney.
Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay asked Ms Bain if she had considered her position as Lord Advocate, while Labour's Michael Marra suggested she had given the SNP a "political advantage".
Ms Bain responded: "I am not considering my position. The minute was sent after a decision in this case was taken in this case by an independent prosecutor.
"I have had no involvement in this case, and any suggestion that I am corrupt or that my position is compromised, I roundly reject.
"The Scottish Government has had no discussion about the timing of Mr Murrell's case. I understand from media reports that Mr Murrell's legal representatives sought for the date to be changed, and this was agreed by an independent judge sitting in an independent court."
Lib Dem MSP Jamie Greene asked Ms Bain if it was "common for the Lord Advocate to inform the First Minister about the specifics of an indictment".
She responded: "It is normal practice that the sharing of this type of information is shared on a case by case basis... There is a fundamental importance of the protection of live proceedings and to ensure they are not compromised in any way."
Similarly, Tory MSP Liam Kerr asked Ms Bain if the update was requested by Mr Swinney or his team.
She said: "The update was shared after my advisors told me of the significant step in process, and the minute was sent to reflect that. It wasn't requested."
Ex-SNP MSP Fergus Ewing asked Ms Bain why she provided the update to Mr Swinney, rather than the independent prosecutor.
The Lord Advocate responded: "The contact with the First Minister was made because it was appropriate to clarify that I had no involvement in operational decisions and to reinforce the need for strict observance of the Contempt of Court principles."
Read more:
- Mothballed Scottish swimming pool to reopen after shock closure three years ago
- Manhunt after £20,000 worth of cable stolen from Fife railway line
- Cash-strapped Scots university spent more than £40k on luxury car for senior managers
Asked about the email to the First Minister on Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service told the Press Association: “The Lord Advocate provided the First Minister with an update to ensure it was understood she was not involved in the case, that it was active for contempt of court, and therefore it should not be commented upon.
“This message was sent formally after the indictment had been served in order to form part of the record and ensure transparency in due course.
“Once an indictment has been served on an accused it stands to become public at any point."
