Peter Murrell has been charged following his second arrest by Police Scotland, but warnings are now being issued to prevent people from breaching Contempt of Court laws.

The former Chief Executive Officer of the SNP was re-arrested by Police Scotland Officers on Thursday morning as part of an investigation into the party’s finances.

The 59-year-old husband of former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was taken into custody for questioning at 9.13am more than a year after his first arrest.

He was later charged at 6.35pm on Thursday evening in connection with the embezzlement of SNP funds, Police Scotland confirmed.


READ MORE:  Peter Murrell charged in connection with embezzlement of SNP funds


However, when Police released information on his arrest, they also issued a warning to anyone discussing the case on social media, and the crown office has followed up by issuing advice on the Contempt of Court Act.

A spokesperson for Police Scotland said: "A report will be sent to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in due course. The man is no longer in police custody. As this investigation is ongoing we are unable to comment further.”

“The matter remains active for the purposes of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the public are therefore advised to exercise caution if discussing it on social media."

It has been confirmed that Peter Murrell has resigned his SNP Party membership.

So, what is Contempt of Court and how does it apply?

Now that Peter Murrell has been charged in connection with embezzlement of SNP funds, the proceedings for the court case are now active, restricting what can be said about the case.

Once legal proceedings become active, it is a criminal offence for media organisations to broadcast material which would create a substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to the proceedings.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), Scotland’s independent public prosecution service, has issued advice relating to the law in the wake of the high-profile arrest reminding people what consequences they could face.

A statement said: "In Scotland, when a person is charged with a criminal offence the case becomes ‘active’ in terms of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This means that any conduct tending to interfere with the course of justice may be treated as a contempt of court, regardless of intent to do so.

“Contempt is punishable by up to two years in prison and/or an unlimited fine in serious cases. Its purpose is to protect the integrity of proceedings, preserve access to justice for victims, and to secure the rights of a fair trial for the accused.”
 


READ MORE: Who is Peter Murrell, the former SNP chief executive?


What can’t we say?

Strict liability applies to this case, meaning a defendant (anyone accused of contempt of court ins this case) is liable for committing an action, regardless of what his/her intent or mental state was when committing the action.

The Crown Office added: “A ‘strict liability’ rule applies to any publication or communication addressed to the public at large, including online publications. Any information published about an active case must not include commentary or analysis of evidence, witnesses or the accused.”

The ruling applies to comments and posts on social media platforms, published work - be that written or broadcast and also to readers' comments on heraldscotland.com