PROSECUTORS have been asked to investigate whether Nicola Sturgeon’s husband misled the Holyrood inquiry into the Alex Salmond affair and committed a crime.
Labour has asked the Crown Office to examine evidence given under oath by Peter Murrell, the chief executive of the SNP.
Inquiry member Jackie Baillie said she wanted an "urgent" check into whether Mr Murrell could have “perjured himself” during his appearance before MSPs.
Wilfully making a false statement under oath is punishable by up to five years in jail.
Mr Murrell is already being recalled to give a second round of evidence to the inquiry after criticism of his evidence last month.
The latest concern follows Mr Murrell denying the existence of text and WhatsApp messages regarding allegations against Mr Salmond.
In response to questioning from Ms Baillie at the inquiry, Mr Murrell stated there were no other text or WhatsApp messages on this issue.
However the inquiry has since heard other messages do exist and are currently being held by the Crown Office.
Last Friday the inquiry took the unprecedented step of ordering the Crown Office to release the material.
Ms Baillie has now written to the Crown Office calling for an investigation into Mr Murrell’s testimony in light of the apparent discrepancy.
In her letter she reproduced testimony Mr Murrell gave on December 8.
She said: “During my exchange with Peter Murrell... I asked him about the existence of other text and Whatsapp messages, beyond the two messages from him in the public domain.
“He denied that there was anything else, other than the two text messages under discussion by the Committee.
“It would seem to be the case that, from information recently placed in the public domain, there were other text and WhatsApp messages.
“Indeed the Committee has written to you using its Section 23 powers, set out in the Scotland Act, to request sight of those messages, so they evidently exist.
“Given that his evidence wa taken under oath, I regard this as a very serious matter and I understand from parliamentary lawyers that committing perjury is considered to be a criminal offence.
“As the Crown Office have all the text and Whatsapp messages secured during the evidence gathering phase of the criminal trial against Alex Salmond, you will be in a position to know whether any more exist than the two already in the public domain.
“If that is the case, and particularly if there are more in which Mr Murrell is involved, I am concerned that his evidence to the Committee was not accurate.
“I would therefore be very grateful if you would confirm that you will undertake an urgent investigation into whether Peter Murrell has committed perjury.”
READ MORE: Kenny MacAskill says Nicola Sturgeon’s husband on way out as party’s top official
The inquiry is looking at the Scottish Government’s mishandling of into complaints of sexual misconduct made against Mr Salmond in 2018 by two female civil servants.
The former First Minister had the exercise set aside in a crowd-funded judicial review at the Court of Session, showing it had been unfair and “tainted by apparent bias” because the investigating officer had been in prior contact with the complainants.
Taxpayers were left with a £500,000 bill for Mr Salmond’s legal costs as a result.
He was later charged with sexual assault but cleared on all counts at a trial last March.
His supporters claim the former First Minister was the victim of a high-level SNP plot to stop him making a political comeback and rivalling his estranged successor.
It later emerged Mr Murrell had sent a party colleague messages on the day that Mr Salmond was charged urging police and prosecution action against him.
One read: “Totally agree folk should be asking the police questions… report now with the PF [procurator fiscal] on charges which leaves police twiddling their thumbs. So good time to be pressurising them. Would be good to know Met looking at events in London.”
He later said he did not express himself well, but defended sending the messages.
Mr Murrell's evidence about the messages has developed over time.
In oral evidence last month, he was asked by Ms Baillie if he had discussed Mr Salmond’s judicial review in a WhatsApp group with party or government colleagues.
Mr Murrell said: “I can tell you only that I know nothing about a WhatsApp group. I am not on WhatsApp; it is not a social media platform that I use.”
However it then emerged a WhatsApp account linked to his mobile number had been used the previous month, and he admitted he was on WhatsApp but didn’t use it.
Stirkcing to the present tense, he said in a clarification to MSPs: “I do not use WhatsApp. There are several messaging apps on my phone that I don’t use.
“This includes profiles on Facebook Messenger, LinkedIn, Instagram, Slack, Skype, and WhatsApp, none of which I use.”
But in a further clarification, after being asked in writing whether he had “ever used WhatsApp in the past including any communications with SNP officials or party members on anything related to concerns about the former first minister and the timescales for such exchanges”, he confined his answer to Mr Salmond, without saying whether he had used it at all.
He said: “I confirm that I have not used WhatsApp on any matters related to concerns raised about the behaviour of Mr Salmond.”
Tory MSP Murdo Fraser, 2ho also sits on the inquiry, said: “The SNP’s story changes every time they or their civil servants appear in front of the Salmond inquiry.
“What is clear is that Peter Murrell’s story simply does not add up and he has serious questions to answer.
“It is time we got to the truth of the matter about what senior SNP figures knew and when, rather than them trying to decide what is relevant information.
“The Crown Office must urgently investigate the SNP chief executive's evidence in order to guarantee that this committee was presented with a true version of events."
The SNP declined to comment.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel