SNP trust breach claim over donations ‘nigh on irresistible’, says senior lawyer
Senior Legal Expert Weighs In on SNP Donation Dispute
SNP trust breach claim over donations - A significant civil lawsuit targeting the Scottish National Party over what has been described as a fraudulent breach of trust concerning donation funds is gaining considerable momentum. According to Roddy Dunlop KC, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, the legal case is "nigh on irresistible" in its potential to succeed.
The Origins of the Controversy
The SNP has faced mounting scrutiny in recent years regarding the handling of crowdfunded money. Initially, the party assured contributors that these funds were "ring fenced" specifically for an independence referendum campaign. However, that anticipated referendum never materialized, leaving many donors questioning the proper use of their contributions. When pressed about how the money was ultimately utilized, party representatives explained that it supported general organizational activities. They maintained that all such actions were consistent with the broader goal of advancing Scottish independence.
Legal Opinion Strengthens the Case
Stuart Campbell, who operates the Wings Over Scotland blog and has been a vocal critic of the SNP leadership, is pursuing legal remedies on behalf of contributors hoping to recover their money. To strengthen his position, Campbell obtained a comprehensive legal opinion from Roddy Dunlop KC. Dunlop's assessment concluded that the SNP had likely committed a fraudulent breach of trust. His written opinion stated:
"On the assumed facts, the civil claim for fraudulent breach of trust is, in my opinion, nigh on irresistible."
The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates outlined four key elements supporting this conclusion: the trust was established, it was subsequently breached, the breach involved dishonesty, and donors experienced financial loss equal to their unrecovered contributions.
Legal Remedies and Potential Outcomes
Dunlop emphasized that simply being "the party of independence" would not suffice as a defense. He clarified that the trust was specifically tied to a referendum campaign, not general independence efforts. Should the lawsuit proceed and the SNP be found liable, Dunlop indicated that courts could order the party to repay donors their original contributions plus interest. With the judicial rate of compound interest set at 8 percent, he noted that successful claimants could potentially receive double their initial donation amounts. Additionally, the senior legal expert suggested in his opinion that the SNP might have committed embezzlement by diverting funds away from their intended purpose.
SNP's Response and Context
A party spokesperson addressed the allegations, stating that the accusation had been "fully explored" during an investigation into the SNP's financial affairs. This probe ultimately led to former chief executive Peter Murrell entering a guilty plea for embezzling £400,000 of party funds. Murrell, who is the estranged husband of former first minister Nicola Sturgeon, received a sentence exceeding five years at Edinburgh High Court last month. The spokesperson elaborated:
"These were the issues which were fully explored during the course of the forensic police investigation – and which resulted in no action taken against the SNP."
According to the party, the extensive police investigation uncovered Peter Murrell's criminal actions and determined that the SNP itself was the victim of embezzlement. Regarding refunds, the spokesperson noted that a small number of donors to the independence campaign had requested their money back, and all legitimate requests received full refunds. The party confirmed that any other donors wishing to reclaim their contributions can contact the SNP directly to make a request.
Broader Implications
This legal development adds another layer to the SNP's financial challenges. While Peter Murrell's embezzlement case focused on £400,000, the current civil claim involves more than £600,000 in donations. The distinction between Murrell's individual criminal actions and the potential institutional breach of trust represents a crucial legal nuance that courts will need to examine carefully. The outcome of this case could set important precedents for how political parties manage donor funds and maintain transparency in their financial operations.