Ex-SNP chief Peter Murrell granted legal aid for embezzlement charge
Murrell, who is Nicola Sturgeon's husband, faces a charge of embezzlement related to funds of the party he ran for more than 20 years.
Murrell, 60, who was chief executive of the SNP between 2001 and 2023 and at points took home a six-figure salary, has had an application for solemn legal aid approved by the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
He was first arrested in April 2023 as part of the long-running police investigation Operation Branchform into the SNP's finances.
He appeared at Edinburgh sheriff court in March this year, where he faced a charge of embezzlement. He made no plea and was granted bail.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Parliament's master bellringer hit with £100k court bill after tearing out neighbours' gates
Parliament's master bellringer has been hit with a £100,000-plus court bill after tearing out the front gates of his banker neighbour's £2m west London home during a neighbours' fight. Retired financier Nicholas Partick-Hiley bought his mews cottage in Disbrowe Road, Fulham, in August 2023, planning to make the property a dream home for his retirement alongside wife, Lisa. But the 64-year-old was shocked when he arrived on the day of completion to find his new neighbour - Parliament bellringer Adrian Udal, 65, - demolishing the door and roller gate securing the front of his home. Mr Udal insisted he had a right to do what he did as he owns the land the gate was on, but the couple sued and won the case last month after Judge Nicholas Parfitt branded Mr Udal's actions "wanton destruction" and 'carefully pre-planned'. And now Mr Udal - Secretary of the Belfry at St Margaret's Church, a medieval building next to Westminster Abbey which acts as place of worship for the Houses of Parliament - has been left facing a £100,000-plus bill after being ordered to pay the legal costs of the case. In a short hearing at Mayor's and City County Court, Judge Parfitt ordered him to pay £85,000 up front towards his neighbours' estimated £100,000-plus legal bill. He will also have to pay the couple £10,000 compensation for what he did, as well his own lawyers' significant costs, which have not been revealed in court. Mr Udal is a veteran bell-ringer, whose Secretary of the Belfy role involves liasing with clergy when bellringing is needed for special church, state and parliamentary events, while he is proud to have 'rung in' the New Year almost every year since 2000. He also works as a broadcast editor and has a keen interest in antique clocks, while his wife, Helen, is also a campanologist, being bell tower captain at St Gabriel's Church Pimlico. Mr Partick-Hiley is a retired financier and former managing director and head of sales for North America investment banking specialists Panmure Gordon. During the trial last month, Judge Parfitt was told how the two neighbouring homes are in an unusual layout, with the Partick-Hileys' house located behind Mr Udal's property and reachable across a drive and through a passageway, which passes under part of his house and into their courtyard. The drive and passageway are owned by Mr Udal, but the Partick-Hileys have the right to pass over it to get to their house, the court heard. Explaining the background to the row, Mark Warwick KC, for the Partick-Hileys, said: 'On the day of completion, Mr Partick-Hiley arrived at the property at about 12.10. 'He was astonished to find Mr Udal and another man. The two men were in the process of destroying the door and gate. They were also disconnecting wiring that connected the property to various services. "No advance warning of any kind had been given by Mr Udal, or anyone on his behalf, that such extraordinary behaviour was going to happen. 'Mr Partick-Hiley endeavoured to remain calm. He contacted his solicitors, he felt helpless. 'Mr Udal and (the other man) continued with their demolition work until about 5pm. 'His actions were plainly carefully pre-planned. No amount of persuasion, including the involvement of the police, has caused him to resile, or seemingly regret, his actions. 'The impact of these actions, and contentions, has been serious, their quiet enjoyment and actual enjoyment of their home has been disrupted.' The couple sued for an injunction against Mr Udal, claiming the right to put up new gates across the opening which leads to their house, citing "security concerns" in the affluent street. They said they were aware of a conflict between their home's previous owner and Mr Udal before moving in, but thought it was settled until Mr Udal was witnessed dismantling the disputed gate. Through their solicitors, they had contacted him two months before the move, explaining that they planned to install 'better looking and more functional gates' once they moved in, although making clear they would welcome Mr Udal's input on the style and design of those gates. But in response, the couple alleged their new neighbour began to plot how to remove and install new gates, buying his own set of metal barriers on July 13, 2023, which Mr Warwick claimed showed that 'he was planning to carry out the destruction of the existing gates'. When the day of completion arrived, 'Mr Udal and his accomplice duly set about destroying the gates and disconnecting services running through the driveway', he added. Their barrister claimed Mr Udal had "carefully planned" what he did and did so "at a time to cause maximum disruption and distress." Soon afterwards, the couple's lawyers wrote to Mr Udal insisting that the removed gates were their property and that it was up to them to decide what alternatives should be put in their place. 'Mr Udal disagreed,' said the KC, adding: 'On 10 September, he began to hang metal gates, of his own choosing, right next to the pavement.' In court, the couple insisted they have the right to erect and site entrance gates "on either side of the opening that runs under part of Mr Udal's house," plus the right to park a car in the area. But Mr Udal insisted their right only extends to having the strip gated at the front of the property next to the pavement and they have no right to have a car on his land. He said that in removing the existing roller gate and door, and installing a new gate next to the pavement at the end of the driveway, he had done no more than assert his legitimate rights as freehold owner of the passage between the two homes. Handing victory to the bell master's neighbours, Judge Parfitt slammed his "wrongful act of wanton any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort" and ordered him to pay £10,000 damages. "Mr Udal was a poor witness who came across as preferring his own perception of what might be helpful to his own case, regardless of any objective reality," he continued. "The overall impression was that truth for him, in the context of legal proceedings at least, was no obstacle to a clever argument about language or the other evidence. "He referred to his destruction of the roller shutter and furniture as his having 'returned' it to (the former owner). This is also using expressions normally used to describe something helpful - getting something back to the owner - as a means of sugar-coating the reality of what he was doing: destroying part of the claimants' property on the very day they were moving in and would have expected to find the roller shutter and furniture providing a secure and private barrier between the road and their new house. "On a balance of probabilities, the defendant had planned to destroy the roller shutter and furniture on the day of completion and perhaps hoped that it would be a fait accompli by the time the claimants arrived. In any event, he continued his actions even after they had arrived and it was clear that they objected." The judge found that the gates Mr Udal removed were in the correct position and that the couple have a right 'to pass and re-pass either on foot, or with or without vehicles" down the drive and passage. He added: "Mr Udal's actions in respect of the roller gates and furniture was an inappropriate and wrongful act of wanton destruction designed, in my view, to, at best, take advantage of the gap between owners occurring at completion, and conduct which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort to the new owners." Returning to court last week to decide on matters consequential to his judgment, Judge Parfitt ordered Mr Udal to tear out the gate he installed within two weeks. He said the Partick-Hileys would have the right to install their own, but that if it is to be lockable they must ensure that Mr Udal is able to get in if he wants to get to the back of his house. He also ordered him to pay £85,000 towards their lawyers' bills - estimated at over £100,000 - ahead of an assessment at a later date. His own lawyers' bills were not revealed in court papers. Representing himself via a video link, Mr Udal said he was planning to challenge the decision on appeal.
The Sun
34 minutes ago
- The Sun
Fresh hope for thousands of households suffering with extreme service charges planned by government law change
THOUSANDS of households will be able to challenge extortionate leasehold service charges more easily, the government has said. Households who live in leasehold properties pay fees to the person who owns the building or their managing agents for services including building insurance and maintenance. These service charges can include repairs and maintenance for things such as the roof, windows, drains and gutters. The payments are usually due twice a year and the exact amount can vary depending on the costs the landlord incurs. This can mean that they can be hit with surprise bills that can often run into thousands of pounds. Almost five million homeowners pay service fees, which have risen by 11% in the last year to an average of £2,300 a month, according to Hamptons. Leaseholders have been promised that the system will change by several governments and Labour when it was in opposition. The government is hoping to tackle this problem by forcing companies to be transparent about the fees they are charging, Sky News reports. The reforms will be introduced after a consultation, the government said. Leaseholders will receive standardised service charge documentation that will explain clearly and in detail how the fees are calculated and where their money is being spent. Other reforms will stop leaseholders from automatically having to pay for a landlord's legal costs even if they have won their case. The changes will allow homeowners to challenge unreasonable service charges more easily, housing minister Matthew Pennycook said. He added that the changes will put pressure on managing agents to reduce the fees. It will also introduce a strict new qualification system for managing agents to try and improve standards in the sector. Mr Pennycook told Sky News: "The system has some inherent inequities in it that do allow leaseholders to be gouged and particularly when it comes to managing agents there are unscrupulous people out there. "They are abusing leaseholders and there's poor practice. How do service charges work? Service charges are fees paid by a leaseholder or resident and are set by the landlord. The amount varies every year depending on costs to the landlord. The details are usually set out in your lease. Landlords usually calculate the fee based on what they think they will spend. At the end of the year they should provide a statement. Some leases allow landlords to ask for contributions towards a "sinking fund" which is a reserve that can be built up for larger scale works. These could include repairing the roof of the building or fixing issues with the foundations. "The reforms we are announcing today and reforms that are to come are going to bear down managing agents and ensure the sector as a whole is properly regulated." Unfair charges Some leaseholders have said that they have been charged unfair fees. Judges have made some landlords pay back up to £100,000 after the leaseholders took them to tribunal. In one example, the leaseholders were charged £135 to change two lightbulbs. In February 2023, it was revealed that landlords and insurance brokers were taking up to 60% of the £1.6billion leaseholders paid for building insurance as hidden commissions. New rules now stop insurance companies from choosing policies just to earn the highest commission. But brokers and managing agents are still allowed to take commissions. The government has previously promised to ban excessive building insurance commissions through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. Instead, landlords will only be able to charge a straightforward and fair "permitted insurance fee" for the work they actually do, making costs clearer and protecting leaseholders from hidden charges. However, these proposed laws still need further legislation to come into effect, and the government hasn't yet provided a timetable for this. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing previously sold The Sun that "far too many leaseholders" are being hit with "unreasonable and extortionate charges". New rules planned by the government also plan to introduce commonhold agreements to replace leasehold ones. Commonhold allows flat owners to jointly own and manage their buildings, which cuts out landlords and property management companies. But the proposed rules only apply to new homes. How to challenge fees Leaseholders have the right to request extra information from their landlord within six months of receiving a summary of costs. You can challenge a cost if you think it's unreasonable, the standard of work is poor or you don't think you should have to pay it. For example, you could question why you need to pay for lift maintenance if you live in a ground-floor flat and it's not included in your lease. Or you can challenge for communal services, such as a garden that is always closed or a concierge that never has any staff. To challenge these services you need to apply to a tribunal which has the power to rule on whether the service charge is reasonable or payable. In England this is the first-tier tribunal (property chamber). In Wales it's the leasehold valuation tribunal. Applying to the tribunal usually costs a fixed fee of £114, but you may be able to waive it if you have certain benefits. If your case is transferred from court to the tribunal, you'll only pay the difference between the court fees and the tribunal fee - or nothing if you've already paid more than £114 in court fees. If a hearing is scheduled, you'll need to pay an additional £227 hearing fee. Speak to the Leasehold Advisory Service online at or call them on 020 7832 2500 to find out more and get free advice on service charge issues. You could also apply to the Housing Ombudsman if you want to complain about how your service charge fees have been managed. The Ombudsman said cases have jumped by 25 per cent in the last four years. .
The Sun
34 minutes ago
- The Sun
Baby shower erupted into brawl when dart legend Jocky Wilson's niece ripped out gran-to-be's hair – but she avoids jail
A BABY shower erupted into a savage brawl when dart legend Jocky Wilson's niece ripped out the gran-to-be's hair. Mum-to-be Chantelle Wilson was celebrating the imminent arrival of her baby daughter with partner Ben Ritchie the bash spiralled into a punch-up. 6 6 6 Her mum Sarah Wilson, 45, attacked Pamela Ritchie - the dad-to-be's mum - by pulling her hair and punching her. Chantelle's sister Chardonnay Wilson, 20, lashed out at Ben's grandmother, who later claimed her feeding tube was removed. Sarah Wilson and daughter Chardonnay are the niece and great-niece of late World Professional Darts Championship winner Jocky Wilson. But Sarah avoided jail after pleading guilty to assault and was instead ordered to pay £500 compensation to the victim. Her daughter was given an absolute discharge, which in Scottish law means the offence will not go on her record despite a conviction. It came after her solicitor claimed a conviction would end Chardonnay's career as a carer. Dunfermline Sheriff Court heard the two families had gathered at Lochore Miners' Welfare Social Club in Fife on May 18 last year. At first, everyone seemed to be getting on "fine" but the mood turned sour following a game of "Would Mummy Rather". One question was asked about whether Chantelle would rather "put a bottle on for the baby or open a bottle of wine'. The court heard someone from dad-to-be Ben's family then yelled out she would open the wine, which caused Chantelle to become "upset". Chardonnay Wilson said her mum Sarah and Ben's mum Pamela were 'arguing back and forward'. She added: 'My mum told her they could speak any other day but not to spoil the occasion." But the court heard more rowing broke out during a game of "Baby Bingo" after apparent sexual comments were heard. A punch up then unfolded outside the venue after an alleged abusive remark was aimed at the Wilsons. Sheriff Susan Duff said: "Mrs Ritchie's evidence was that she was left with a bald section on her head as a chunk of hair had been pulled out." Sarah Wilson pleaded guilty to assault, while Chardonnay was convicted following a trial. She still denies removing Yvonne Ritchie's feeding tube and punching and kicking the gran-to-be. Sarah's solicitor Stephen Morrison said: 'This was a baby shower celebration that turned sour for one reason or another. "She absolutely regrets the incident and she hadn't been drinking that day. "She continues to have a relationship with her daughter's partner but not with the rest of his family. There's no reason to believe there will be a repetition of this behaviour as she's not likely to put herself into another family situation like this.' Jocky Wilson was world champion in 1982 and 1989 and one of the biggest stars of the games. He retired in 1995 and died at the age of 62 in 2012. 6 6 6
