Peter Murrell's Sentence

I think it's about right.
He wouldn't have done it if he thought there was a chance he'd get 5 years in prison for it, that's for sure.

I have some sympathy for the man. I always wondered if he had a spending addiction. He seemed to spend it on odd things, hair straightners. He is bald.
I still think he should be punished. He can pay back the money, but I think the sentance seemed a bit long.

Tuliptree

I think having even a scintilla of sympathy for him is part of being human. As I said there are really wicked fraudsters out there that I wouldn’t feel like that - remember Robert Maxwell who stole his employees pension funds which meant an impoverished retirement for many? And those who conned life savings out of their victims? I know he embezzled other people’s money and of course it’s right he’s being punished but he hadn’t ruined anyone’s life ( other than his own) or given them a poor retirement. I expect his real crime for those who are so hard on him is that he was an SNP member and married to NS

Not just "a member of SNP".

He was the Chief Executive of the SNP. Right at the top of the Govt administration for 20 years.

Tuliptree

Nell82

There's a tiny part of me that feels there's something poignant about a grown man amassing all those luxury home making items some of which were never used ...

Yes I agree. Poignant is a good word. I can’t understand some of the vitriol and vindictiveness on this thread. There are much much worse fraudsters out there who have ruined people’s lives. The only life ruined here is PM’s and for what?

Not just his life.

His fraud ended his wife's career; did huge damage to the the credibility of the Scottish Govt, the SNP , and rocked supporters of Scottish Independence. It's also raised questions about the response of the First Minister, Swinney ; and about a SNP Treasurer and senior politicians who resigned because they'd been denied access to the accounts. Even the party's AUDITORS resigned .

There is a huge stench of shit backed up in the sewers of Scottish politics , waiting to hit the fan now the court and sentencing are over.

I don’t know, I think there is a certain pathetic aspect to the people who commit this kind of crime, because it stems from their own sense of their lack of worth. I knew a girl at work who always talked about, and spent lots of money on, holidays and clothes, and turned out to have been fiddling the other members of a lottery syndicate she ran. She ended up in court too. It wasn’t on the same scale, but she lost everything, her job her friends, and her reputation. She disappeared from our town, I don’t think she could have endured the stares and gossip, I still wonder what happened to her.

I expect the real reason that many feel sympathy for him is it is tricky sometimes to acknowledge that they believed in a con man.
The adults are back in the room and all that jazz.

I think having even a scintilla of sympathy for him is part of being human. As I said there are really wicked fraudsters out there that I wouldn’t feel like that - remember Robert Maxwell who stole his employees pension funds which meant an impoverished retirement for many? And those who conned life savings out of their victims? I know he embezzled other people’s money and of course it’s right he’s being punished but he hadn’t ruined anyone’s life ( other than his own) or given them a poor retirement. I expect his real crime for those who are so hard on him is that he was an SNP member and married to NS

Nell82

There's a tiny part of me that feels there's something poignant about a grown man amassing all those luxury home making items some of which were never used ...

I think a bit of me feels the same. What motivated him? His wife had such a high profile here in Scotland, not to mention a high opinion of herself, did he do it to live up to her? “I’m the man with the money” sounded pathetic to me. But I think he should serve his time and then sink into obscurity. Unlike his estranged wife …

I witnessed a fraud within a workplace, it caused very severe distress to those who were 'conned'. I think this kind of fraud causes considerable damage. I think there is something about fraud that is linked to class, it is often a middle class crime and is viewed in a different way to orher forms of theft.

I think the thing is, he has lost his "life", and that 5 years is in addition to the public humiliation. That is sufficient punishment, in my opinion.

I don’t feel in the least sorry for the man and think the sentence seems about right.He has lost his wife, home and any credibility through his fraudulent spending.

Nell82

There's a tiny part of me that feels there's something poignant about a grown man amassing all those luxury home making items some of which were never used ...

Yes I agree. Poignant is a good word. I can’t understand some of the vitriol and vindictiveness on this thread. There are much much worse fraudsters out there who have ruined people’s lives. The only life ruined here is PM’s and for what?

There's a tiny part of me that feels there's something poignant about a grown man amassing all those luxury home making items some of which were never used ...

Betony

Hmm. Wonder if he'll get treatment in prison for a 'spending addiction' or something similar? With treatment for an unfortunate psychological condition and a promise to pay back the loot, he'll probably be out in a few months.
I'm prompted to post this because I've just listened to a repeat on Radio 4 Extra of 'It's a Fair Cop', which featured a clerk who stole goods from her firm and sold them on eBay in order to pay for her addiction to Bingo! She got a suspended sentence and support to cure her addiction, with no mention of paying back the value of the goods.

Rather than making assumptions about when he’ll be released, why don’t you read up on what will actually happen to him ( and anyone else in his position?? The case you quote was in no way comparable and as you say, she was given a suspended sentence. As for PM he will be considered for parole halfway through his sentence.

My OH thought that also . I thought that judges had no choice but to sentence within fixed parameters based on the law and internal legal guidlines. The Scottish judge according to today's paper , meant the sentence to disincentivise other would-be embezzlers and to reflect the specific breach of Trust in this case given the seniority of Murrell's position in the SNP. So the Judge thought it a substantial sentence and it would have been 7 years had Murrell not pleaded guilty thus limiting the State's legal costs to a certain degree. As well Murrell has to pay back what he embezzled apparently and has the money to do so all that to be settled at a future hearing . I pointed all this out to the OH but he is still a little aggrieved because those who were swindled were ordinary people who could probably ill afford the money.

Hmm. Wonder if he'll get treatment in prison for a 'spending addiction' or something similar? With treatment for an unfortunate psychological condition and a promise to pay back the loot, he'll probably be out in a few months.
I'm prompted to post this because I've just listened to a repeat on Radio 4 Extra of 'It's a Fair Cop', which featured a clerk who stole goods from her firm and sold them on eBay in order to pay for her addiction to Bingo! She got a suspended sentence and support to cure her addiction, with no mention of paying back the value of the goods.

I thought he would get about 5 years. It's highly unlikely he'll reoffend and he doesn't pose a physical risk to others. For a man in his position, being found out and prosecuted was the start of his punishment so he's now got another 5 years to reflect on his crimes.

Cabowich

I'd forgotten that he'd pleaded guilty - that's a definite sentence-reducing factor.

However, given his position of responsibility, I still think he should have received a longer sentence.

I wonder what jobs will be open to him on his release? Or will he retire (dis)gracefully?

If you read the sentencing comments, you’ll see his abuse of his position was factored in. He was given a sentence at the top end of the range available. The judge also mentioned the fact that he’d probably never be employed again.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Fitting that he’s sentenced on Amazon prime day.

I'm still laughing at this, FGT2!

I'd forgotten that he'd pleaded guilty - that's a definite sentence-reducing factor.

However, given his position of responsibility, I still think he should have received a longer sentence.

I wonder what jobs will be open to him on his release? Or will he retire (dis)gracefully?

BBC 7pm this evening

BBC News - The Big Cases, Peter Murrell: The Man with the Money share.google/FRAzzPYMKVupJGL9i

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Fitting that he’s sentenced on Amazon prime day.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

It’s a serious crime, and I think 5 years will be long enough for him to consider his greed and dishonesty. Long sentences in a compromised prison service are probably better reserved for people who pose a physical danger to others.

It is helpful to read the judge’s sentencing remarks as they cover some of the issues raised above such as repayment. In terms of length of sentence, given the amount (£500k is seen as a benchmark) the 7 years was actually on the higher end of the range and again the judges comments clarify that such as length of time he was embezzling, breach of trust, abuse of position of authority and deterrence. I agree with Cossy though that these types of crime should usually be punished differently

grandMattie

Really??? Surely he should be given more? And those around him who shut their eyes, be prosecuted as well.
In such cases, perhaps “let the punishment fit the crime” is often more appropriate than a long prison sentence.
He should also be ordered to pay back a load of that money.

How would you prove that there were eyes being shut? I think one of the many sad things about this affair is the number of people, especially on social media, who jumped on his actions to attack Nicola Sturgeon, nearly always choosing to ignore the fact that there was nothing remarkable about luxury items being in a home where their combined income was around £250k a year, therefore she ‘must have known’ or even that he was taking the blame for her.
I suspect he just did it ‘because he could’, maybe starting with the odd purchase here and there, until it became a regular occurrence. Who knows? His life is ruined anyway.