Peter Murrell's Sentence

A tweet got 3 years.

I think the sentence is fine.
It was 7 years reduced as he pled guilty.
He'll likely serve two and a half years.

I honestly think that sentance is at best fair and worse a bit long.

Yes this man needs a custodial sentance, he was knowingly dishonest, but far worse crimes have recieved a lesser sentance.

No, it isn't long enough.

Fitting that he’s sentenced on Amazon prime day.

Very light indeed. Very little information about why he did it.
Will he be expected to repay the money he stole, or is that dismisses?

IMO far worse crimes receiving a lesser sentence is irrelevant and simply demonstrates that the sentences given aren't suitable.

Having sat through more court cases than I care to remember, I think that's a fairly standard sentence for embezzlement. I've certainly seen far more lenient sentences imposed for embezzlement, including community service.
Murrell was sentenced to five years and three months imprisonment, been reduced from seven years, which would have been imposed if he had been found guilty after a trial.
The judge says he reduced the sentence because Murrell pleaded guilty at the preliminary hearing.

I think it’s about right.

However, different topic I know, I don’t think most people committing non-violent crimes should go to prison.

A person described as an activist by the BBC has said he may take out a private prosecution against Nicola Sturgeon. Murrell has apparently said he will repay the money, he has it available to do so. As yet, no reason given as to why he did it.

Smileless2012

IMO far worse crimes receiving a lesser sentence is irrelevant and simply demonstrates that the sentences given aren't suitable.

I think it is comparable, this man should recieve a prison sentance but in my opinion it is too long. I don't think he had any previous and it is a not a violent crime.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Fitting that he’s sentenced on Amazon prime day.

🤣🤣

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.

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.

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

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.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Fitting that he’s sentenced on Amazon prime day.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

BBC 7pm this evening

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

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?

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Fitting that he’s sentenced on Amazon prime day.

I'm still laughing at this, FGT2!

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.

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.

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.

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.