We’ve had TWO emails from the Crown Office already this week, neither of which says anything except “Please hold”.
We’ve added them to our “in due course” collection, also featuring Police Scotland.
As we told you last week, we’ve now had counsel draft our application for a group proceedings action on behalf of donors to the “ringfenced” independence referendum campaign funds which were stolen and spent by the SNP on party business.
The draft can be read below. We’ve already gathered dozens of people who are unhappy about having their donations misappropriated by the party, and we invite any others who’d like refunds and compensation to join the group by getting in touch via the Wings contact form.
(There will be no cost to you from becoming involved in the claim.)
Here’s a passage from Crown Agent John Logue’s recent BBC interview in which he described the crime for which Peter Murrell was just sentenced to five years and three months in prison. You’ll note that we’ve highlighted a few words and phrases in red.
JOHN LOGUE: I think the best way I can describe it is in some ways this case was no different from embezzlement that people might recognize in their daily lives. If people are a member of a church or a bowling club or a golf club, if someone in that organization has access to money on behalf of the society or the club and takes it and spends it in the local shops, that’s embezzlement.
And in some ways this case was as simple as that because what we were able to prove after the police investigation and after our investigation was that that was what Peter Murrell had done here. He had access to and control of party funds and he used it for his own purposes and that’s the crime of embezzlement.
And now let’s just swap out those words for some very similar ones.
We’ve just sent this letter to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
Dear Sirs/Madams,
Thank you for your response, which I have considered with care.
I note you have advised that “full consideration was given to whether the crime of fraud could be established. That investigation did not disclose sufficient evidence of fraud, or for any crime other than the crime of embezzlement. These conclusions were agreed by the procurator fiscal, by Crown Counsel who was a KC and by a reviewing KC.”
I agree that the evidence to which I have pointed demonstrates the crime of embezzlement, as I said to you in my previous correspondence. The point is, however, that there are two instances of embezzlement: that to which Mr Murrell pled guilty (ie his embezzlement from the SNP); and that which has seemingly not been the subject of investigation and certainly not prosecution, for reasons which remain unclear.
The evidence to which I have pointed admits of little doubt. In short:
- Money was ingathered by the SNP on the basis of assurances that it would be “ringfenced” for defined purposes
- That money was thereafter subject to a trust under Scots law, in terms of which it could only be spent for those defined purposes
- The First Minister of Scotland has now confirmed that the money was spent on other matters.
It really is that simple. It defies belief to think that the Procurator Fiscal and two KCs could look at that simple factual matrix and conclude that there was no evidence of a crime.
That being so inherently unlikely, I can only assume that those involved were not considering that point, and were (as your last reply suggests) considering rather whether or not it could be shown that fraud was involved in the solicitation of donations. I can quite understand that proving fraudulent intent at the time the donations were sought would be difficult.
But again (and at the risk of repetition) that is not the point. Assume that the donations were solicited in bona fide for the defined purposes: thus no fraud in ingathering the money.
That does not answer the question which I am posing, which is on what possible basis could it be lawful for those donations then to be spent on anything other than the defined purposes for which they were solicited?
I thus invite you to reconsider.
I should say that I have instructed the drafting of civil proceedings based on fraudulent breach of trust, which as I am sure you are aware is the civil equivalent of embezzlement.
Given that fact, I dare to suggest that it would be rather embarrassing for the Crown Office to be found to have ignored repeated requests to look at this very point if a civil court decides that what I have described above as a simple factual matrix does indeed show that which I contend is blatantly obvious: embezzlement, in the form of the wrongful use of money held on trust by those to whom it had been entrusted.
Regards etc,
Rev. Stuart Campbell
As ever, we’ll keep you updated.
And in relation to those last two paragraphs, if you were a donor to any of the SNP’s “ringfenced” fundraisers and you’re not happy that your money was stolen and used to elect the likes of Karen Adam, Lloyd Melville, Patricia Gibson, Alyn Smith, Kirsten Oswald and – ultimate trolling – Colin Beattie instead, please drop us a line via the Wings contact form. We’ll be getting in touch with all respondents very soon.
We have received a further reply from the Crown Office.
Alert readers may note that while Wings has repeatedly noted that the misappropriation of the fundraiser money by the SNP could constitute either fraud OR embezzlement (or both), entirely separate to the embezzlement FROM the SNP by Peter Murrell, the Crown Office continues – as its agent John Logue did in a recent BBC interview – to address only the possibility of fraud, which would be by far the more difficult of the two to prove, and to ignore the elephant in the room, which is that no less a personage than the First Minister has already admitted to spending all of the money on a purpose other than that which it was raised for.
The response is therefore plainly unsatisfactory, which we will deal with in our own reply within the next 24 hours, which will again be drafted by counsel. We will of course publish it here once it’s sent, so stay tuned.
For any of you who haven’t caught it yet, my interview from Monday’s BBC Scotcast (which is also available on Spotify).
Sadly due to a summer scheduling quirk the video version won’t go out on the telly, and seemingly not on the BBC YouTube page either, so you’ll just have to listen to the audio and somehow live without seeing my gorgeous face.
We’ve already discussed the contents of the videos released last week by the BBC containing interviews with Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston of Police Scotland and Crown Agent John Logue of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
But videos (especially lengthy ones) are always a bit of a pain to reference, and these are incredibly significant documents, so we thought it’d be quite useful to post the full transcripts too, with the text tidied up (taking out all the “um”s and “eh”s and so on) for ease of reading.
This is the interview with John Logue (Stuart Houston’s is here):
And below is what’s said in it. We’ve added a comment here and there, in red.
We’ve already discussed the contents of the videos released last week by the BBC containing interviews with Deputy Chief Constable Stuart Houston of Police Scotland and Crown Agent John Logue of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
But videos (especially lengthy ones) are always a bit of a pain to reference, and these are incredibly significant documents, so we thought it’d be quite useful to post the full transcripts too, with the text tidied up (taking out all the “um”s and “eh”s and so on) for ease of reading.
This is the interview with Stuart Houston (John Logue’s is here):
And below is what’s said in it. We’ve added a comment here and there, in red.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
