Meeting of the Parliament 18 February 2026 [Draft]
I understand that it is suggested that there has been a briefing. It is important to look at what actually happened. It was the submission of a minute to the First Minister that was in five paragraphs, and the very limited information that related to Mr Murrell’s case only took up a few lines in paragraph 3. We have made the minute available, and it is quite clear that it refers only to the preliminary hearing taking place, the charge and the tradition of law officers not being involved in the decision making. It also says that the case remains live, and that
“Now that the case has been indicted, further procedure and the timetable for the case will be determined by the Court.”
That is the content of the minute. There was not a briefing as we might understand it. It provides very straightforward information.
In so far as the other points that Ms McNeill has raised, there have been instances in other cases in which there has been notification, on a case-by-case basis, of the fact that there has been a significant development in a particularly high-profile and sensitive case. That will have been for the purpose that I have said before: to ensure that there is no inappropriate or unlawful comment on live proceedings. It is critical to the rule of law that that is profoundly respected. That was the whole purpose of sending the minute to the First Minister in this case.
We can give other examples of when that has been done, but I am concerned about ensuring that I protect the integrity of all the proceedings that those issues might relate to.