Questions raised over two-week delay to police raid of Sturgeon’s residence
Questions are being requested concerning the timing of Police Scotland’s raid of Nicola Sturgeon’s Glasgow residence, after the Scottish Sun obtained a Freedom of Information request exhibiting the Crown Office had been made conscious of the raid request on March 20, nevertheless it wasn’t given the go-ahead till April 3.
The delay meant that the headline-grabbing transfer by Police Scotland didn’t occur till after Humza Yousaf had gained the competition and Mrs Sturgeon had left workplace.
Speaking to the Scottish Sun, a police supply unconnected with the SNP probe claimed that in some instances the place there could possibly be “huge political ramifications” the timing of such a transfer by the police “would be taken into consideration”.
Police Scotland requested the Crown Office for search warrants for the raids on Ms Sturgeon’s residence and the SNP headquarters on Monday March 20.
READ MORE: Sturgeon refuses to answer questions on police motorhome probe
That similar Monday was the beginning of the ultimate full week of the SNP’s management contest.
However the Crown Office solely agreed to the warrants request on Monday April 3, finally resulting in the raids on April 5.
The Crown Office has denied they delayed operations, together with Peter Murrell’s arrest, till after the management election had concluded.
However Scottish Deputy Leader Jackie Baillie instructed the paper: “This is a very interesting revelation that will lead to raised eyebrows across Scotland”.
Ms Baillie has additionally steered perceptions won’t be helped by the very fact Scotland’s Lord Advocate – head of the Crown Office – is at the moment a minister and a member of the Scottish Government cupboard advising on authorized issues.
“Whilst I accept that the Lord Advocate may not have had a direct influence on the timing, this story underlines why we need to have a serious discussion about separating the role of the Lord Advocate to ensure that no perception of conflict of interest can ever occur.”
Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay mentioned: “It’s interesting to discover that these key moments in the long-running police investigation took place around the same time that the SNP was imploding”.
“Given the obvious sensitivities about alleged fraud relating to the party of government and the husband of the former First Minister, it is vital that any issues about timings and procedures are made clear to the public.”
The Crown Office mentioned: “It is standard that any case regarding politicians is dealt with by prosecutors without the involvement of the Lord Advocate or Solicitor General. We will continue to work with police on this ongoing investigation.”
Tory MSP Stephen Kerr reacted to the news merely with an inquisitorial emoji, although the news broke solely hours after he revealed he’d requested the Scottish Government what number of pre-paid – so-called ‘burner’ – telephones it had bought within the final 5 years.
The Scottish Government responded that it “does not hold records for all mobile phones purchased in the last 5 years as they are purchased by individual business areas and agencies to meet their requirements”
“However, our central mobile phone voice & data contract which will be used by the majority of staff, does not have provision to purchase pre-paid mobile phones.”
Mr Kerr’s question came after it emerged in late April that the Scottish Police were ‘hunting for burner phone sim cards’.
A source told the Sunday Mail: “They want to know the numbers connected with these [sim] cards, which could also contain numbers called and text messages.
“It’s not uncommon for people to have unregistered mobile sim cards, which can be bought from any shop. There’s nothing wrong with having a so-called burner phone, but police want a record of these phones in the SNP.”
The SNP has been contacted for comment.