Shame and ridicule - but no motive: Five things we learned as Peter Murrell is jailed

Peter Murrell has been jailed for five years and three months for embezzling more than £400,000 from the SNP.

The High Court in Edinburgh had previously been told how the party's former chief executive covered his tracks over a 12-year period.

What did we learn from the sentencing hearing - and which questions remain unanswered?

Murrell's lawyer, John Scullion KC, said his client had been in a position of trust as SNP chief executive.

He acknowledged that the 61-year-old had "behaved dishonestly and went to considerable lengths to conceal his crimes and avoid detection".

The court previously heard that the source of the money Murrell embezzled was the party's main bank account, over which he had control.

He was able to make direct transfers of money from that account and also used charge cards linked to it to pay for items.

Murrell then used misleading accounting codes to record income and expenditure.

For example, he bought two Bremont watches in 2017 with £9,350.25 of SNP funds - but both transactions were recorded on the accounting software as "event merchandise".

Scullion said his client recognised "not only the harm caused to those directly affected by his actions, but also the broader societal impact of his dishonesty".

He added: "It is apparent from the report, in my submission, that he accepts full responsibility for his actions and does not seek to minimise his culpability in any way."

Scullion told the court that Murrell had expressed feelings of guilt and remorse.

The KC said his client acknowledged the "psychological, emotional and financial harm" his actions had caused to the SNP and others.

"In my submission, the accused is now an individual overwhelmed by feelings of embarrassment and shame."

The court heard Murrell had "gradually withdrawn from social contact" since his arrest on 5 April 2023.

Scullion continued: "For many months prior to the tendering of his plea he lived in almost total isolation, at times to the detriment of his health."

He said Murrell accepted he alone was to blame for his predicament and that he was not worthy of sympathy.

Scullion said the custodial sentence would only be part of Murrell's punishment.

He said the offences had ended his client's career and any future career prospects.

"He has been ostracised by his friends and former colleagues," said Scullion.

"The nature of many of his purchases, detailed in the narrative and schedules to the indictment, has made him a figure of public ridicule.

"His humiliation will endure beyond any sentence your lordship imposes, and may prove lifelong."

When he is eventually released, Scullion said Murrell's future was likely to be "bleak and uncertain".

The court was told Murrell wants to make amends for his crimes by repaying the money he embezzled in full.

The headline figure has not been publicised, but we may get one when a Proceeds of Crime hearing calls in Edinburgh in September.

It will involve a series a calculations, including inflation, to determine what can be classed as ill-gotten gains.

Scullion said that there would be sufficient funds under his client's control to repay the sum embezzled.

He later confirmed, in response to a question from Lord Young, that the money was under Murrell's sole control.

The judge, Lord Young, described Murrell's offending as "not particularly sophisticated" - but said it had been a "calculated crime of dishonesty".

He said the former SNP chief executive had become more prolific with the passage of time, and only stopped after he was caught.

The judge referred to a criminal justice social work report which had sought to explore the reasons for Murrell's offending.

"You identified possible factors arising from your background, working life and personal circumstances," said Lord Young.

"But in truth, it is very difficult to get a clear picture for what drove your actions.

"Many of the high value items acquired by you were not even used.

"And for my purposes today, I think it's sufficient to say that I cannot identify any factors which caused you to offend which might be considered to be mitigatory factors."