SENTENCING STATEMENTS

A judge may decide to publish a statement after passing sentence on an offender in cases where there is particular public interest; where a case has legal significance; or where providing the reasons for the decision might assist public understanding.

Please note that statements may include graphic details of offences when it is necessary to fully explain the reasons behind a sentencing decision.

Once charges are spent, any statement in relation to them is removed and cannot be provided or acknowledged. Statements published before the launch of the website may be available on request. Please email judicialcomms@scotcourts.gov.uk.

The independence of the judiciary is essential to safeguard people’s rights under law - enabling judges to make decisions impartially based solely on evidence and law, without interference or influence from the government or politicians.

When deciding a sentence, a judge must deal with the offence that the offender has been convicted of, taking into account the unique circumstances of each particular case. The judge will carefully consider the facts that are presented to the Court by both the prosecution and by the defence.

For more information about how judges decide sentences; what sentences are available; and matters such as temporary release, see the independent Scottish Sentencing Council website .

Read more about victims of crime and sentencing.

HMA v Peter Murrell

Jun 23, 2026

At the High Court in Edinburgh, Lord Young sentenced Peter Murrell to 5 years and 3 months imprisonment, after the offender pled guilty to embezzlement. The former Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish National Party admitted to taking around £400,000 from the organisation.

Upon sentencing, Lord Young made the following remarks:

"Peter Murrell, last month you pled guilty to a single charge of embezzlement. You carried out a large number of fraudulent acts over a 12-year period while Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish National Party. In total, a sum of just over £400,000 was taken from that organisation. Your offending increased in frequency and amount over time. As set out in the Criminal Justice Social Work Report (CJSWR), you found yourself unable to stop this offending, and it was only detection of the crime which brought it to an end.

"Your actions involved a significant breach of trust to the organisation which you led, and to the individual members and donors. Because of your position of authority, you were able to circumvent the checks and balances that existed. The manner of the embezzlement, although not particularly sophisticated, included the fabrication of invoices. You gave false information to junior members of staff to input into the accounting system. This was a calculated crime of dishonesty. Let me make it clear to you, one factor in the sentence which I impose today will be to act as a deterrent to any senior officials in other large organisations who might be tempted to abuse their position in the way you did.

"On any view, the total sum involved in this case was a substantial one, and the embezzlement spanned a long time. The author of the CJSWR sought to explore with you the reasons for your offending. You identified possible factors arising from your background, working life, and personal circumstances but, in truth, it is difficult to get a clear picture for what drove your actions. Many of the high value items acquired by you were not even used. For my purposes today, I think it is sufficient to say that I cannot identify any factors which caused you to offend which might be considered as mitigating factors.

"I have listened carefully to everything said on your behalf by Mr Scullion. You are a first offender albeit the indictment discloses a course of consistent offending for 12 years. You have played an important and committed role within a successful political party in Scotland. The public coverage of your downfall will make future employment difficult if not impossible. The author of the CJSWR considers that you are not attempting to minimise or excuse your offending in any way. You are described as remorseful and I accept that. The risk assessment within that report identifies you as presenting a 'minimal' risk of general re-offending. I am told that a full repayment of the sums embezzled can reasonably be expected from your personal funds, and I shall proceed on that basis.

"You pled guilty to this charge at an early stage. I am told that in early March, shortly after the indictment was served, you gave instructions to your legal advisers to discuss a potential plea with the Crown. The precise terms of the plea were adjusted over the following 11 weeks. Given the complexity of this case, it is understandable that the Crown and your legal advisers required time for that process to be completed. By pleading guilty at the preliminary hearing, there is a significant benefit to the judicial system by the avoidance of a lengthy and complex criminal trial which would have lasted many weeks. I shall, accordingly, make an appropriate reduction to the headline sentence in accordance with s.196 of the 1995 Act.

"Turning now to that sentence. If you had been found guilty of this charge after trial, I would have imposed a sentence of 7 years imprisonment. Having pled guilty at the preliminary hearing, I impose a sentence of 5 years, 3 months’ imprisonment. I shall backdate that sentence to the 25 May 2026 when you were first remanded in custody.

"That is all."

23 June 2026