The Lord Advocate first told the Scottish Government that Peter Murrell was accused of embezzling almost £460,000 in March last year.
She revealed the infomation in a note to the government on Mr Murrell's case when he appeared in court for the first time, she told Holyrood's Presiding Officer in a letter today.
Dorothy Bain KC told Alison Johnstone she sent a minute to the government when Mr Murrell appeared in court almost a year ago.
She said that memo - as well as a second sent to the First Minister this January - also included the "value of the alleged financial offence.. to provide factual confirmation".
She gave the update after she was pressed by opposition parties last week for a complete set of communications she had with the government about Mr Murrell's case.
The controversy first arose after it emerged last week that the Lord Advocate sent a private minute to Mr Swinney in January warning him about contempt of court risks in relation to proceedings against Mr Murrell, who is accused of embezzling almost £460,000 from the SNP over 13 years.
The minute was then passed on to others in government, including Colin McAllister, the First Minister’s chief of staff, who is a political appointee rather than a civil servant.
However, details of the charges only became public weeks later. Opposition parties say that gave the SNP advance access to sensitive information that nobody else had and gave them a political advantage.
Today's revelations that the Scottish Goverment knew of the charges against Mr Murrell for almost a year longer than first thought have further angered Labour and the Conservatives who have called for the Lord Advodate to return to Parliament to answer questions.
Read More:
- Cherry seeks answers on Murrell memo amid Lord Advocate reform call
- Law chief's private Murrell warning to Swinney sparks storm
- Murrell email igniting calls for Lord Advocate role reform
- Kemi Badenoch in calls to split Lord Advocate role
In her letter today Ms Bain insisted the March 2025 minute to the government was "appropriate", allowing her to provide "factual information" and give a reminder that proceedings were active in terms of contempt of court legislation.
"In relation to the case against Peter Murrell, I was advised on two occasions that it was appropriate to provide limited factual information to the government, first, on his appearance in court on March 2025 and then again on the service of the indictment in January 2026," she said.
"On each occasion, given the extremely high level of publicity which the investigation had attracted, it was appropriate to provide the government with appropriate and limited confirmation of decisions taken by the prosecutor and the nature of the charges."
She added: "This also served to protect proceedings where there is a strong likelihood that ministers will be asked about prosecution decisions.
"Each minute also provided reassurance that the Law Officers had no operational involvement in prosecutorial decision making in this case.
"The value of the alleged financial offence was included on each occasion to provide factual confirmation of a matter on which there had been substantial publicity and speculation in the media during the police investigation, namely the scope and monetary value of the alleged offence. The minutes did not contain any evidence."
The first minute also told the government that former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and SNP MSP Colin Beattie were no longer under investigation by the police.
Ms Bain added: "The March 2025 minute also provided confirmation of the conclusion of the police investigation of two other individuals in the knowledge that this information would be public on the same day. It was appropriate as head of the system of prosecution for me to advise the government of this development in such a high profile police investigation."
The revelations has prompted fresh questions from opposition parties for the Lord Advocate.
Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay said: “It’s shocking to now discover that the Lord Advocate tipped off John Swinney about details of the highly sensitive criminal case against Nicola Sturgeon’s husband almost a year ago.
“While she gave Mr Swinney this dubious private briefing, the Crown Office was refusing to provide the same details to the public and the media who were kept in the dark.
“The SNP justice system operates on two tiers. The top tier of John Swinney and his SNP spin doctors get secret information, while the bottom tier of everyone else in Scotland is told nothing. Sleekit Swinney should explain why he failed to come clean about getting this information almost a year ago.
“And when the Lord Advocate was being questioned in parliament last week, why did she not come clean about her previous disclosure?
“This bombshell revelation adds to the existing stink and now explains why Mr Swinney has become increasingly shrill in his desperate attempts to deflect attention.
“The Lord Advocate must return to parliament and give a full statement and straight answers to many outstanding questions. And this surely sounds the death knell for the Lord Advocate’s dual role.”
Scottish Labour Deputy Leader Jackie Baillie said: “These bombshell documents raise far more questions than they answer for John Swinney and his government.
“John Swinney received crucial information almost a year ago, while journalists and the public were kept in the dark.
“The people of Scotland deserve transparency from our government and they need to know that all criminal cases are handled impartially and without political interference.
“The Lord Advocate must explain why she told John Swinney information that the Crown Office refused to make public and well before any indictment was concluded.
“John Swinney must come clean and tell us why he was given this information and whether he or his government applied pressure on our justice system to ensure he was clued up on this case.
“This SNP government is drowning in sleaze and cover-ups – Scotland deserves better and in May we can vote for it by electing a Scottish Labour government.”
The Lord Advocate told Holyrood last week she had provided the note to Mr Swinney as a reminder to ministers not to comment publicly on a live criminal case, which could risk contempt of court or undermine proceedings.
She said the memo was sent only after the indictment had been legally been served — meaning there was no legal constraint on its contents.
“From the point at which an indictment is served, there is no limitation on its terms being made public,” she said.
On Wednesday, responding to an urgent question, Ms Bain was pushed on why she had shared this information with Mr Swinney.
She told MSPs that her purpose was to remind ministers not to comment publicly on a live criminal case, which could risk contempt of court or undermine proceedings.
Details of the charges against Mr Murrell appeared in the Scottish Sun on February 13, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service told journalists: “We have no comment, the indictment is not a public document until it is presented in open court.”
Her appearance has raised questions over whether she breached the ministerial code by misleading parliament.
Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie, wrote on Monday to the Scottish Government's advisors on the code, to ask them to probe the matter.
Ms Baillie pointing out Ms Bain said from the point at which an indictment is served, “there is no limitation on its terms being made public".
However, the Labour MSP stated that after the Crown Office position communicated to the media was that the indictment is not a public document until it is presented in open court".
The indictment is not due to be presented in court until Mr Murrell appears again on May 25.
Ms Baillie added: "These statements cannot both be correct. If the indictment was not a public document at that point, then providing its contents to the First Minister and SNP advisers would plainly be a disclosure of non-public information. If the Lord Advocate’s statement to Parliament was inaccurate, it should be corrected promptly."
The episode has prompted renewed calls for a separation of the Lord Advocate's two roles which means she is both head of the independent prosecution service and a member of the government as its chief legal adviser.
Critics says it would be preferable for two people hold the different roles to prevent any conflict of interest or public perception of it should prosecutions arise of people close to government.
The Scottish Government is currently considering the findings of an expert review into the role of Scotland’s law officers, while last year Keir Starmer signalled his support for change.
The position is enshrined in the Scotland Act and can only be changed by Westminster.
Former SNP MP Joanna Cherry attempted to bring forward plans to separate the roles in a private member's bill when she was an MP.
However, the bill did not proceed after she lost her seat in the 2024 general election.
