John Swinney has said he has “absolute confidence” in Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain as she faces scrutiny over her decision to share details of the legal case against Peter Murrell with the First Minister.
Scotland’s chief law officer shared a memo with the First Minister in January, which outlined embezzlement charges against former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell.
He is accused of embezzling almost £460,000 from the party over a period of 13 years.
Ms Bain denied claims of political corruption as she defended her actions in Holyrood on Wednesday.
The issue dominated First Minister’s Questions, with Mr Swinney telling his political opponents the memo was sent to warn him about the risk of “contempt of court on a significant criminal case”.
Mr Swinney also faces calls to overhaul the role of the Lord Advocate, which is a dual role of chief prosecutor and the government’s principal legal adviser, and sits in Mr Swinney’s cabinet.
Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay accused the Lord Advocate of a “gross misjudgement” in providing key information about the criminal case.
Read more:
- Lord Advocate denies 'political interference' after Murrell update
- Peter Murrell court date postponed until after election
- Peter Murrell granted legal aid after embezzlement charge
- Peter Murrell news, interviews and updates
He said her reasons for why she briefed the First Minister on matters that did not enter the public domain until weeks later did not “stack up”.
But Mr Swinney defended the lawyer. He said: “I want to say something very directly to Mr Findlay, to parliament, and to the public in Scotland.
“Dorothy Bain is an outstanding prosecutor. She is an outstanding lawyer. She has 40 years of unimpeachable service to the public interest in Scotland. She alone is responsible for more cases of sexual violence of men against women being brought to justice than any other person and I put on record today my absolute confidence in the Lord Advocate in undertaking her duties.
“I am disgusted by the way Russell Findlay spoke about her yesterday and he should be ashamed of himself and he should withdraw every word of contemptible rubbish that he’s put on the record.”
He added: “I understand the importance of protecting live criminal proceedings. That is exactly why the Lord Advocate sent me a minute to warn me about the risk of contempt of court on a significant criminal case and it is abundantly clear that I would be asked about that case.”
He said the Lord Advocate provided the document to ensure Mr Swinney did not “prejudice” the case.
Read more:
- Trade union defends civil servants after office attendance figures revealed
- Full Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor timeline from palace birth to birthday arrest
Mr Swinney then shared the information with his senior advisers and his chief of staff. He said it was important to do so given they handle business on his behalf.
Mr Swinney also quoted lawyer Thomas Ross KC, who said on BBC Radio Scotland Breakfast that it was “shameful” to accuse the Lord Advocate of corruption.
Mr Ross said: “The current Lord Advocate has practised at the Scottish Bar for 40 years. She has a stellar career. She is trusted by every practising lawyers and every judge in the country and for her to be accused of corruption without a shred of evidence to support it was one of the most shameful episodes I’ve seen in that building.”
The Scottish Tory leader said: “The Lord Advocate should have known that handing politically advantageous information about an acutely sensitive criminal case involving Nicola Sturgeon’s husband to the SNP leader was a gross misjudgement.
“The Lord Advocate was appointed by Nicola Sturgeon and retained by both Humza Yousaf and John Swinney.
“As a member of John Swinney’s SNP government, she’s supposed to be politically neutral.
“I will say it again, in the real world, this smacks of corruption.
“This scandal is typical of an SNP government obsessed with secrecy and spin.”
He said it provided the SNP with a “political advantage”.
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said: “Yesterday the Lord Advocate appeared to give inaccurate and contradictory information to this parliament.
“She said she had not given John Swinney political advantage because ‘From the point at which an indictment is served, there is no limitation on its terms being made public.’
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service last week told journalists: “The indictment is not a public document until it is presented in open court.”
“These two statements can’t both be true,” Mr Sarwar added.
