Narrowing the options
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.
Offfttt. Class indeed.
Excellent! It’s very clear. With you, I await progress.
I really hope you get somewhere with this, even tho SG and COPFS are desperately digging a hole deep enough to bury this in
I suspect squeaky bum time for the offenders and those who covered for them
Keep up the excellent work
Jez
Oh, God. I just LOVE really elegant lawyers’ letters. If Roddy Dunlop were ever to get posters made, I’d have one on my bedroom wall….
Magnificent Stu and counsel.
For funding of civil proceedings, count me in.