How the actual hell did Peter Murrell get legal aid??

[SirChenjins]

A salary which appears (from the job ad) to have been close to £100k and assets in the form of a house - but he qualifies for the aid that eludes so many?? No wonder the SNP finances were a mess with someone like him (and others) at the helm.

It’s disgusting. And yet…am not remotely surprised…SNP are despicable

Nope, I'm not surprised either - another example of the SNP and the legal system in Scotland being far too cosy.

I wonder what the odds of him being found guilty are?

I'm assuming that he is currently unemployed so no £100 000 salary to spend.

I also think it will be a long and complex case with substantial legal fees. I'm glad that Peter (and anyone else accused of a crime) has legal aid to mount a proper defennce.

I thought it was always legal aid for criminal charges.

No, he isn't on £100K now - that was why I mentioned the job ad.

I agree, everyone accused of a crime should have legal aid if they need it. However, they don't as we all know. Lack of access to this fund means that people often don't get proper representation. Unless you're a former SNP chief exec caught with your hand in the till, of course.

https://www.mygov.scot/legal-aid/criminal-cases#:~:text=Criminal%20legal%20aid%20is%20usually,on%20petition%20under%20summary%20procedure

To get criminal legal aid you'll have to show that you can't afford to pay your legal costs yourself or that paying them would be unreasonable to you or your family.
Criminal legal aid is usually granted if:

• you've been charged with a serious offence on petition under solemn procedure (this means it's likely there will be a trial with a jury)
• you've been charged with a less serious offence on petition under summary procedure

To get criminal legal aid you'll have to show that you can't afford to pay your legal costs yourself or that paying them would be unreasonable to you or your family. Criminal legal aid is usually granted if:

• you've been charged with a serious offence on petition under solemn procedure (this means it's likely there will be a trial with a jury)
• you've been charged with a less serious offence on petition under summary procedure

It doesn't look like Peter is getting special treatment.

He’s currently unemployed.

And no savings, despite his £100k salary - while a woman assaulted by her husband is turned down for legal aid by 116 lawyers www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdx5qjyw25o.amp

Absolutely disgusting

The SNP are the victim of this alleged crime.

Absolutely disgusting

Yes, what a disgrace that we still provide the means to a legal defence for individuals who have had their assets frozen. We should just lock them up without trial

🙄

Again, the SNP are the alleged victim, not the defendant.

Maybe on public interest grounds or some such and if it’s expected to be super super super expensive. So difficult, almost impossible for most people to get it. Thanks to Kenneth Clarke.

Yes - and he was the chief exec, married to their leader. Far too many of them looking the other way.

From the article linked to above - "The Scottish government minister responsible for legal aid described her plight as "unacceptable" and promised reforms were on the way".

Let's hope they come soon from the SG so that the woman in Lochaber and others like her get the help they need to ensure that it isn't limited to influential men in the central belt who were responsible for their own actions.

It’s staggering, he was earning a huge salary for years. Where has all the money gone? It’s not like he was known for extravagant living, his wife was earning a six figure salary and yet he has no savings. In 2021 he could afford to lend the SNP £100,000+ so this is quite the dramatic reversal of fortunes.

They are entirely interchangeable. As is Sturgeon. Sturgeon and Murrell were the SNP and the SNP will never be able to escape that...even by ousting him as CEO. The culture is so ingrained and that is entirely Sturgeon and Murrell.

Is there no way to unfreeze a proportion of the frozen assets to finance the ‘costs’ of legal aid? If found guilty, they can be added to the pot of money needed to be retrieved/repaid - if found not-guilty of fraud, they can be reimbursed to the innocent party?

I see the logic but it seems like a Catch 22 that means the tax-payer ends up defending the richest in society who have had the means to profit and employ financial advisors/methods to maximise their personal wealth. It’s reminiscent of men hiding their financial assets so they look skint on paper and therefore claim to be incapable of paying child maintenance.

And does Sturgeon not come under suspicion by being in a position to potentially have helped him out by claiming some of ‘their’ assets were hers alone? Will she not get her finances scrutinised closely seeing as she was in a personal and professional partnership with him for many years?

According to that article I linked to:

The Scottish Legal Aid Board said Mr Murrell's lawyers made a successful application for support on 30 April, but no payments had yet been issued.
A spokesperson said: "When assessing an applicant's eligibility for legal aid we look at their financial position at the time of their application.
"This includes information they give us about their salary, the amount of money they have in the bank and any investments, which might be available to fund their own defence privately.
"Peter Murrell's application met the tests we have to apply when deciding whether to grant legal aid."

So while he can't sell his house because that asset is frozen, it seems unbelievable that a person on his salary has such little amount in savings (less than £1716 is required to qualify). So where's it all gone?

Daily Express now going with the story too - if the SNP repay the £60K they still owe him then he won't qualify for the legal aid that is denied to so many others https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/peter-murrells-legal-case-wont-35490053

Wings over Scotland has an interesting take on this but sorry I'm not able to link.

Well, he's not in the SNP any more is he.

So the point is, regardless of political party, what the hell are the rules?

https://wingsoverscotland.com/too-tight-to-mention/#comments

Excellent article- thanks for sharing that.

He has a net worth of $5 million and the Scottish tax payer has to pay the legal fees, downright ridiculous.

Well he’s not in America so his net worth won’t be in dollars will it?