Meeting of the Parliament 18 February 2026 [Draft]
I can explain that Mr Murrell appeared on petition on 20 March 2025. Criminal procedure limits apply to the case, and those were effective on that date. That meant that the case was subject to extended time limits that were put in place to address the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. That added a period of six months to the time limits that would have otherwise applied in criminal trials. Therefore, the time limits that apply to the case were provided in terms of the statutory provisions as they stood on 20 March 2025.
As Mr Murrell was granted bail when he appeared on petition, the time limits that applied when the indictment was served on the accused were readily available and publicly understood. A preliminary hearing, or a first diet, must be commenced within 17 months of the date on which an accused first appears on petition. The trial must commence within 18 months of the date on which the accused first appears on petition.
A preliminary hearing is a hearing in which the readiness of the prosecution and the defence are assessed ahead of trial, and it is within those time limits that relevant hearings are fixed. Those hearings are scheduled by the independent judiciary and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Mr Murrell’s case is therefore live proceedings. The independence of the criminal courts is a fundamental part of our justice system. There should not and cannot be political interference in criminal cases.
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 of his court hearing to be changed, and that was agreed by the independent judge, sitting in the independent court.
It was after the indictment was served on Mr Murrell that I provided the update to the First Minister. The Crown Office has explained that that was to confirm that the Lord Advocate was not involved in the case. The case was active for contempt of court purposes, and no comment should be made in relation to the case.
It simply would not have happened that the Crown Office would have had influence over the decisions in relation to the timing of Mr Murrell’s case once it was in the hands of the independent court and the decisions as to its future progress were handled by an independent member of the judiciary. To say otherwise would be completely wrong, and that simply has not happened in this case.