Sturgeon to resign as FM

[ProfessorDavey]

That said, it would be very wise of the current FM not to say anything about this. Even "I have full confidence in Peter Murrell" might be unwise because a) it might be seen as trying to influence the investigation and b) Murrell might be guilty and then Humza Yousaf would look a bit stupid.

Indeed, but these are political rather than legal judgement I think.

I suspect Yousaf will be asked the following questions in the coming days (as the newspapers are already posing them):

1. When and how much did your predecessor know about the situation?
2. Was your predecessor's decision to resign linked to these issues?
3. Did the SNP accelerate the leadership contest timeline because they were concerned about these issues?
4. Did the police delay yesterday's actions to avoid acting during the election campaign?

Clearly the newspapers (and others) don't think posing these questions falls foul of contempt as they are all over today's papers.

Now truthfully Yousaf's answer might be 'I don't know', but I suspect his response will use the smokescreen of contempt - something like 'I cannot comment on anything related to the active investigation'.

Yousaf's priority will be to detach himself as far as possible from the investigation and hiding behind contempt allowing him 'no comment' answers is the best approach. But this will largely be driven by the politics, not the legality.

[Nearly Sane]

In what way?

Second day of a search of not that big a home with 20 police on a possible fraud case.

[ProfessorDavey]

Second day of a search of not that big a home with 20 police on a possible fraud case.

But she's a hugely high profile person - so some of the officers will be there to manage the throngs of press, photographers etc outside her home and to allow her neighbours to go about their business without being harassed by the press.

[Nearly Sane]

But she's a hugely high profile person - so some of the officers will be there to manage the throngs of press, photographers etc outside her home and to allow her neighbours to go about their business.

You mean he's married to a high profile person. The SNP offices were searched yesterday. They are relatively large as opposed to this house.

[jeremyp]

Indeed, but these are political rather than legal judgement I think.

Of course. But not all hot water is legal hot water.

I suspect Yousaf will be asked the following questions in the coming days (as the newspapers are already posing them):

1. When and how much did your predecessor know about the situation?
2. Was your predecessor's decision to resign linked to these issues?
3. Did the SNP accelerate the leadership contest timeline because they were concerned about these issues?
4. Did the police delay yesterday's actions to avoid acting during the election campaign?

Clearly the newspapers (and others) don't think posing these questions falls foul of contempt as they are all over today's papers.

Now truthfully Yousaf's answer might be 'I don't know', but I suspect his response will use the smokescreen of contempt - something like 'I cannot comment on anything related to the active investigation'.

Yousaf's priority will be to detach himself as far as possible from the investigation and hiding behind contempt allowing him 'no comment' answers is the best approach. But this will largely be driven by the politics, not the legality.

I don't think I'd rely on the newspapers to only ask questions that would keep me out of legal trouble. It seems to me that they have a vested interest in seeing politicians break the law because it helps them fill their pages.

I don't think Yousaf will use the word "contempt". He'll say something like "I don't wish to prejudice the investigation". Even you have managed to demonstrate that it wouldn't be contempt because Murrell has not yet been charged. However prejudicing the investigation is more woolly.

[jeremyp]

Second day of a search of not that big a home with 20 police on a possible fraud case.

I assume they know what they are doing.

[Nearly Sane]

...Even PD has managed to demonstrate that it wouldn't be contempt because Murrell has not yet been charged. However prejudicing the investigation is more woolly.

Do you mean 'Even if'?

[jeremyp]

Do you mean 'Even if'?

No. I thought I was replying to you and not PD. I have corrected it now.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course. But not all hot water is legal hot water.

True - but politicians are very good at using the (spurious) excuse of legal hot water to avoid answering questions that are politically inconvenient.

[Nearly Sane]

I assume they know what they are doing.

Because the actions of the police are such that as a citizen you have no grounds to question that assumption?

[ProfessorDavey]

You mean he's married to a high profile person. The SNP offices were searched yesterday. They are relatively large as opposed to this house.

It's her home just as much as his that is being searched.

And the little clip you linked to suggests (at the very least) three photographers capturing everything that is going on. I suspect there are rather more than that and therefore additional police presence is needed to manage the press outside than would be required if they were searching the home of a person who wasn't of interest to the media.

[Nearly Sane]

No. I thought I was replying to you and not PD. I have corrected it now.

I would still suggest you have missed out an if following the 'Even".

[Nearly Sane]

It's her home just as much as his that is being searched.

And the little clip you linked to suggests (at the very least) three photographers capturing everything that is going on. I suspect there are rather more than that and therefore additional police presence is needed to manage the press outside than would be required if they were searching the home of a person who wasn't of interest to the media.

It's a possible fraud enquiry. It's medium size house. This is the second day.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's a possible fraud enquiry. It's medium size house. This is the second day.

Crawling with press and media outside.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's a possible fraud enquiry. It's medium size house. This is the second day.

Well I guess every document, and every electronic device, they take needs to be carefully recorded to determine exactly where it was when they found it. And given that, should this go to court, it is likely that Murrell would be able to call upon a top legal team (as Salmond did) then the police will want to be absolutely certain that the search is completely watertight or the legal team will rip them to shreds.

Given that this is going to be hugely politically controversial (it already is - see your own comments) then making sure everything is done painstakingly and carefully makes sense.

[Nearly Sane]

Crawling with press and media outside.

Does that change the size of the house? Or what a possible fraud case involves in terms of a search?

[Nearly Sane]

Well I guess every document they take needs to be carefully recorded to determine exactly where it was when they found it. And given that, should this go to court, it is likely that Murrell would be able to call upon a top legal team (as Salmond did) then the police will want to be absolutely certain that the search is completely watertight or the legal team will rip them to shreds.

Given that this is going to be hugely politically controversial (it already is - see your own comments) then making sure everything is done painstakingly and carefully makes sense.

Oh look a guess

ETA - and see earlier comment about the search of the SNP offices.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh look a guess

Nope - a perfectly reasonable point.

And do you know the usual amount of time police may spend searching a house in a forensic fraud investigation? This may be perfectly normal.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - a perfectly reasonable point.

And do you know the usual amount of time police may spend searching a house in a forensic fraud investigation? This may be perfectly normal.

You said 'I guess' - which is what I pointed out. The offices of the SNP were searched quicker despite ot being a considerably larger premises.

[ProfessorDavey]

You said 'I guess' - which is what I pointed out. The offices of the SNP were searched quicker despite ot being a considerably larger premises.

A turn of phrase Chip.

Regarding the SNP offices it is reasonable to conclude that most material there will relate to the SNP, that there is a clear filing process and therefore any seize and sift process may well be a lot more straightforward. In a private household it is much more likely the SNP-related material will be buried within non-SNP material, either in hard copy or electronically.

I gather in these cases for everything that might be removed Police have to record what has been seized, grounds for seizure and how the original owner can apply for return. It is actually expected that where reasonably practicable copies should be take of all material to be seized and only the copies removed.

I ask again - how long is it usual for a process of this nature to take?

[Nearly Sane]

A turn of phrase Chip.

Regarding the SNP offices it is reasonable to conclude that most material there will relate to the SNP, that there is a clear filing process and therefore any seize and sift process may well be a lot more straightforward. In a private household it is much more likely the SNP-related material will be buried within non-SNP material, either in hard copy or electronically.

I gather in these cases for everything that might be removed Police have to record what has been seized, grounds for seizure and how the original owner can apply for return. It is actually expected that where reasonably practicable copies should be take of all material to be seized and only the copies removed.

I ask again - how long is it usual for a process of this nature to take?

A turn of phrase that the rest of your post shows was true. You guessed.

[ProfessorDavey]

A turn of phrase that the rest of your post shows was true. You guessed.

Nope - no guess. Completely based on police procedures and set out in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

https://www.college.police.uk/app/investigation/investigative-strategies/search-powers-and-obtaining-and-executing-search-warrants

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - no guess. Completely based on police procedures and set out in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

https://www.college.police.uk/app/investigation/investigative-strategies/search-powers-and-obtaining-and-executing-search-warrants

As your experience in police searches tells you.

[ProfessorDavey]

As your experience in police searches tells you.

You do understand that you can get valuable information from that inter-web thingy.

This is the process - it looks pretty complex and laborious to me. Particularly where you are needing to separate relevant material from non-relevant stuff, which will of course be much more likely in a private house than in the office of the relevant organisation.

But I ask again - how long is it usual for a process of this nature to take?

You seem pretty much of the opinion that this is taking longer than normal but have failed to provide one iota of evidence to support this - zip, zilch, nada.

[Nearly Sane]

You do understand that you can get valuable information from that inter-web thingy.

This is the process - it looks pretty complex and laborious to me. Particularly where you are needing to separate relevant material from non-relevant stuff, which will of course be much more likely in a private house than in the office of the relevant organisation.

But I ask again - how long is it usual for a process of this nature to take?

You seem pretty much of the opinion that this is taking longer than normal but have failed to provide one iota of evidence to support this - zip, zilch, nada.

Indeed, the web is marvellous to help guessing by anyone with no experience.