The Conservatives have stepped up pressure on the Crown Office to explain why Nicola Sturgeon was not prosecuted with her husband Peter Murrell.

The party’s leader in Scotland, Russell Findlay, said the prosecution service must publish the reason why no charges were brought against the former First Minister over Operation Branchform.

The Tories said the Crown Office had refused to disclose the information last year, claiming it was connected to an ongoing investigation – but that was no longer the case.

Following Murrell’s guilty plea on Monday, Mr Findlay said Scotland’s top prosecutor, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain, KC, was ‘duty-bound to disclose the rationale for not charging Sturgeon’.

Ms Sturgeon benefited for years from Mr Murrell’s lavish spending on luxury household goods and jewellery but insists she never suspected any wrongdoing.

Mr Findlay said: ‘Faith in the integrity of Scotland’s justice system has been shattered by this epic SNP scandal, which reaches into the heart of government.

‘Senior SNP figures publicly tried to exert undue influence on Police Scotland, so was there any other meddling behind the scenes?

'The Lord Advocate, appointed by Nicola Sturgeon, was passing sensitive information to (First Minister) John Swinney while the public was kept in the dark.

‘The Lord Advocate has a duty to publish the reason why only one person was prosecuted and whether Police Scotland agreed with that decision.

‘An explanation should also be provided about the timing of this case, which spanned five years yet ended with a guilty plea just after the election – to the SNP’s clear advantage.

‘The reason given for blocking Scottish Conservative efforts to disclose this information a year ago no longer apply. To repair public confidence in Scottish justice, it’s time for full transparency.’

The Tories used freedom of information law in March 2025 to ask the Crown Office for the direction it issued to Police Scotland not to charge Ms Sturgeon.

Prosecutors refused, arguing it was ‘held for the purposes of an investigation… to ascertain whether a person should be prosecuted for an offence’ and contained the personal data of third parties, and the public interest was best served by keeping it confidential.

At Holyrood on Tuesday the Tories again asked if the Lord Advocate would ‘publish the reasons why the Crown Office did not pursue charges against Nicola Sturgeon’.

Mr Swinney angrily accused them of entering ‘incredibly inappropriate territory’ and ‘questioning the independent decisions of the prosecution system in Scotland’, adding: ‘It is an insult to the rule of law, and it should not be tolerated in this Parliament.’

Mr Murrell, 61, was placed on remand pending sentencing after admitting he embezzled £400,310.65 from the SNP between 2010 and 2022. He was the party’s CEO, was married to Ms Sturgeon at the time and most of the theft occurred while she was leader of the SNP.

The Crown Office said exemptions applied to the original Tory request still stood, regardless of the status of the case. A spokesman said: ‘The Crown Office does not publicly share details of confidential inquiries where there are no proceedings in court. This protects the rights of the individuals concerned who are entitled to a presumption of innocence.’

In a statement issued on behalf of Ms Sturgeon, lawyer Aamer Anwar said: ‘Whether Mr Murrell was buying pepper grinders, pens or Nintendo etc, Ms Sturgeon was unaware of his criminal conduct.

‘It would appear some “armchair detectives” think they are better placed than the gold-plated investigation of Police Scotland and now wish to try Ms Sturgeon for crimes she has not committed. Fortunately that is not how our justice system works.

‘Had there been any evidence of criminality against Ms Sturgeon, then there can be no doubt she would have been charged, prosecuted and presently be behind bars.’