Wings Over Scotland | ACC Houston, We Have A Problem

We’ve already discussed the contents of the videos released last week by the BBC containing interviews with Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston of Police Scotland and Crown Agent John Logue of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

But videos (especially lengthy ones) are always a bit of a pain to reference, and these are incredibly significant documents, so we thought it’d be quite useful to post the full transcripts too, with tidied-up text (taking out all the “um”s and “eh”s and so on) for ease of reading.

Here’s the interview with Stuart Houston:

?

And below is what’s said in it. We’ve added a comment here and there, in red.

STUART HOUSTON: Stuart Houston, Assistant Chief Constable for organized crime, counter-terrorism, and intelligence for Police Scotland.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Over the years of Operation Branchform, what was your role or roles?

STUART HOUSTON: Initially, when the matter was reported to police, I was the Detective Chief Superintendent for organized crime, and my remit included economic crime and fraud. I oversaw that department at the time, so I was aware of the circumstances when it was initially reported.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Talk about that initial report. How did the police get involved in investigating the SNP’s finances?

STUART HOUSTON: As has been well covered over various occasions and obvioysly in the leadup to the ongoing court matter, an individual came forward to the police and raised concerns regarding what he had assessed from the public-facing accounts of the Scottish National Party. That came into the economic crime unit that I oversaw for an assessment. From there it gathered momentum and engagement with others to establish what was being reported.

GLENN CAMPBELL: So essentially that was an investigation into fraud or potential fraud. But we know that case didn’t develop very far and your focus shifted. Explain why there was no fraud case and no fraud prosecution.

STUART HOUSTON: As the police started to investigate the financial activities that had gone on within the SNP, parts were looked at to establish if there was fraud in relation to how money was gathered into the SNP.

[WINGS COMMENT: And? Was there?]

But what that uncovered were other matters that clearly showed money was being misappropriated, which led to embezzlement. That was through a lot of investigation. We had to engage with a number of people who were part of the SNP, and we looked at bank accounts and various financial transactions to establish where certain monies had gone.

[WINGS COMMENT: So you just lobbed the original complaint in the bin?]

GLENN CAMPBELL: For those looking in from the outside who see that the SNP raised over £600,000 through their independence appeals but didn’t have that money in the bank account — why, when you looked into that issue, was there not a criminal case to pursue?

STUART HOUSTON: The money was coming into one account, whether through fundraising or other matters, and in essence disappeared through other transactions that we later uncovered.

In relation to the fraud aspect, we looked at all the circumstances and what would indicate a fraud having occurred. That was part of our engagement with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and how we sort of looked at all the circumstances of monies that were coming in, but more importantly were able to show where monies were going out.

[WINGS COMMENT: But why were monies going out? There hadn’t been a second independence referendum, so none of that money should have gone anywhere. That means a crime had taken place.]

And I think it’s really important to stress that the fact is that our part suddenly turned to the fact the money that came into the SNP certainly wasn’t showing up in the accounts at a later stage, and some of that had been misappropriated by an individual.

[WINGS COMMENT: Some of it? And the rest?]

GLENN CAMPBELL: Let’s talk a bit about that. Why did your investigation switch to embezzlement?

STUART HOUSTON: From our investigation, as we went through and we started to look at financial records, we looked at certain activities, and there were what were described as “unusual spends”, was one way it was described by some on the team.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Was this on the credit cards?

STUART HOUSTON: Between credit cards and bank accounts. And I must emphasise that this was a significant amount of work to go through transaction by transaction to see where monies had gone.

From that there were items that would not probably have been required by a political party, and quite luxury items at a time when there maybe wasn’t as much ready available cash.

These were things that were alarm bells for us to go and look at a bit further and I actually started to look at some of other purchases that taken place and they became very excessive. 

GLENN CAMPBELL: These early items included purchases from Le Creuset?

STUART HOUSTON: And a number of different retailers that we saw. There was a question why that was required for purchase by a political party. That led further to some of the bigger purchases through the movement of funds, including the financing of vehicles and, particularly, later on, a motorhome.

GLENN CAMPBELL: I suppose the iconic image from this whole investigation is from the day of the police action, the blue tent outside the home of the then-former First Minister and her husband Peter Murrell. Can you just explain why that was necessary?

STUART HOUSTON: From the very outset of this investigation, as the person who oversaw it, I recognized the political sensitivities. The fact is we were investigating the SNP, who were the sitting party in government. We required operational security, and a real driver for me throughout this was the integrity of the investigation.

If any of the information about what we were investigating, what we were looking for or what was being suspected had become in the public domain, that may have jeopardized any future proceedings by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and certainly would have cast doubt on the professionalism, integrity, and capability of the police investigation.

GLENN CAMPBELL: So what’s the purpose of the blue tent? What’s going on inside?

STUART HOUSTON: The blue tent was something that was discussed at length. We were aware that we were going to search the home address and we suspected there were items we would recover that you couldn’t put into a bag and walk out the door with. You would have to account for a large number of items in that house.

To protect from media scrutiny and the integrity of the investigation, we made a decision that we would place a tent around the driveway of the house where we could process the items we were recovering correctly and in line with our procedures, but also protect the integrity of that really crucial investigation.

GLENN CAMPBELL: You’ve got a van inside that tent into which you’re placing items taken from the house?

STUART HOUSTON: Yes, and that was a decision to allow officers to carry out the role correctly and professionally, obtain the evidence, and also to ensure we protected the integrity of what we were investigating. As can be borne out now, that has made it a very professional and high-standard investigation.

GLENN CAMPBELL: You’re taking items from the house and at the same time from the SNP’s headquarters in Edinburgh. What did you have to do to seize the motorhome?

STUART HOUSTON: Our investigations led us to understand where it was being stored. From there we were able to seek a warrant to take possession of the motorhome, as we believed it had been purchased with embezzled funds.

GLENN CAMPBELL: When you came across the motorhome, were you surprised?

STUART HOUSTON: The fact it was in the accounts system, and why a political party would purchase a motorhome, was a question that was raised. What our investigation led to show that the motorhome was purchased by an individual, insured for an individual, and from that we were able to say where it was being kept. And that is a really important part – why would you purchase something and then not use it?

GLENN CAMPBELL: Is it not possible that this could have been used as a campaign bus during an election where COVID was still an issue and it might have been difficult to move people around the country to campaign?

STUART HOUSTON: I think that might be a suggestion from someone, but it was never used for that purpose.

GLENN CAMPBELL: And when you looked inside, was there anything that might have indicated that it could be used as an SNP campaign vehicle?

STUART HOUSTON: There was nothing that I would say would suggest that. It was an ordinary camper van. It had a number of toiletry items within it, as if it was to be used as a personal vehicle,

GLENN CAMPBELL: And some books as well.

STUART HOUSTON: There were a number of items within the camper van which were obviously part of our investigation and were seized during its seizure and removal to police premises.

GLENN CAMPBELL: The travel books?

STUART HOUSTON: I believe there were some travel books that were present.

GLENN CAMPBELL: This investigation from complaint to conclusion took more than five years. Why so long?

STUART HOUSTON: That has been a question that’s been asked on a number of occasions, about the length of time it takes. The fact it that we had to go through a number of accounts. The actual fraudulent or embezzled activity took place over a long time. We were able to check every transaction, look at who the retailers were, we had to look at every line of payments, this was at times a very complex and difficult investigation.

You had bank accounts and credit cards that have been mentioned, but you also had an accounting system within the party that didn’t necessarily have the correct description of what had been purchased.

So a lot of work by forensic accountancy, by police investigators to go through and make sure what we were looking at had not been purchased on behalf of the SNP but, as has now been admitted, was embezzled funds.

[WINGS COMMENT: All of that is true for Peter Murrell’s embezzlement crime, which wasn’t even discovered until two years into the investigation. None of it is true for the original crime which was reported to the police, and which could have been materially cleared up in two weeks at the very most.]

GLENN CAMPBELL: What do you say to those who look at the length of time this investigation has taken and think that somehow you’re drawing it out?

STUART HOUSTON: I would say that we were making absolutely sure we had the right information. We went through a number of financial institutions through warrantry to obtain information, because that’s not owned by necessarily a victim, it’s owned by the banking authorities.

There was obviously potential for legally privileged material that had to be assessed at various times throughout the investigation as well. These are things that investigations over financial inquiries can take a lengthy period of time.

In addition, working in conjunction with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, we got to the stages where we planned for a day of arresting individuals, carrying out interviews, and being in a position where we could put evidence to all the people that were arrested in the inquiry.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Let me put to you some comments from the former SNP MP Tommy Sheppard, who’s suggested to us this whole process took far too long and who accuses the police of creating CSI-style photo opportunities for the media. Is that fair criticism?

STUART HOUSTON: If I’ve touched on it, I believe you must be referring to the tent. As I’ve stressed already, that was to protect the integrity of the investigation.

It’s been commented upon by colleagues of yours in recent days to say that at no time during this investigation were they really aware of what we were looking at. That’s testament to those individuals that carried out that work.

But I come back to the fact that if we hadn’t done something like that, how much media speculation would there have been with items they saw us removing from that house? But it didn’t happen. That allows us to have a fair, transparent process further down the line for a person who became the accused in this case.

GLENN CAMPBELL: No conspiracy here?

STUART HOUSTON: No conspiracy. I would say it is our part in ensuring we carry out a professional investigation.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Does it annoy you that people poke at your investigation in that way?

STUART HOUSTON: This case has been the subject of huge scrutiny, whether that be from yourself media colleagues or through social media, and people who have an opinion on what the police were or were not doing.

What I would say is the complexity and challenging nature was that we were under scrutiny at all times for this. We were under the public eye. Anything we had done out of step with process, or out of step with what we’d expect from a serious and high-profile criminal investigation, could have put in real jeopardy the outcome that we now have.

GLENN CAMPBELL: When you look at the graph of Peter Murrell’s illegal spending – it starts small and then rises to a great peak – what does that tell you about his offending behavior?

STUART HOUSTON: The offending behavior went back a long time when we started looking, at the very start of this. What is show is there was an ability to increase what was being embezzled. The increase we have in online shopping has increased significantly in that period of time as well.

I do think there was that confidence that occurred for some time about continuing to carry out that behavior.

GLENN CAMPBELL: He’s getting bolder.

STUART HOUSTON: Yes, that would be one way of putting it.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Just explain – how did he steal?

STUART HOUSTON: In essence, it was being able to have access and responsibility for the finances to allow him the opportunity to move money, the opportunity to spend, probably at times without question. That’s about stealing, being able to embezzle those funds for his own personal gain.

GLENN CAMPBELL: And how did he cover it up, particularly when it comes to the high-value items?

STUART HOUSTON: He’s a person who had access to the ledger or accounting system that allows you to document what the purchases are. He was able to make those purchases purporting to be on behalf of the party. He wasn’t challenged in that at the right time, and had that ability through the falsification of records and other aspects that allowed him to be in a position to embezzle and hide his crime.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Were there any mechanisms in place to check him?

STUART HOUSTON: Throughout this, the SNP and a number of committees that they had have been spoken to. But I think we need to understand is, this was the chief executive of the party, who is the person in charge of the day-to-day running of that organization. He was in that position and had the ability to be able to falsify records and be the person that was accountable for the finances.

GLENN CAMPBELL: He was trusted.

STUART HOUSTON: He was trusted.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Why was Nicola Sturgeon not reported for prosecution?

STUART HOUSTON: Nicola Sturgeon was subject to arrest and interview during the investigation, as was Colin Beattie. The circumstances of those arrests and the information the police held was all subject of an advice and guidance report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, where it was laid out what their involvement or position was in relation to any crime.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Did she do anything wrong?

STUART HOUSTON: The police, we report the circumstances to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to allow them to make the decision whether someone is prosecuted. We put in the circumstances and allow them to make an informed decision.

GLENN CAMPBELL: You didn’t recommend prosecution in her case.

STUART HOUSTON: We didn’t make any recommendations to prosecute or otherwise. Our role is to report the circumstances.

GLENN CAMPBELL: The Crown are very clear that they accepted your recommendation that there was not enough evidence for a prosecution. Is that correct?

STUART HOUSTON: Our role is to report all the circumstances to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to everything that’s happened, whether than be any investigation and not necessarily unique to this inquiry.

We then seek advice and guidance on whay way they think that should go. It is their decision in relation to the prosecution of cases.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Were you happy to leave it at that?

STUART HOUSTON: We act in working conjunction with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and we have to do that. The fact is that we are there to act on their behalf to carry out investigations.

It’s essential that we work together and reach agreement on certain things, to make sure how we take things forward, whether about progressing to get warrants etc. We report the circumstances and again it’s for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to assess that as well, and provide any advice and direction.

GLENN CAMPBELL: And just one last thing on that – were you in agreement with the Crown that there was no case to pursue that might lead to a prosecution?

STUART HOUSTON: Our line was very much: here is all the evidence that we have collated, as much as we could find. Our job is not to have that final decision. Our job is to assess-

GLENN CAMPBELL: But hang on a minute – in the case of Peter Murrell, you’re sending in a report saying that this guy’s committed a crime and should be prosecuted. I recognize that it was a different type of report that you sent in in relation to Nicola Sturgeon, but therefore can we conclude that you did not think there was the evidence there for her to be prosecuted or for further inquiries to be made?

STUART HOUSTON: To distinguish between the two types of report: for Peter Murrell there is a Standard Prosecution Report to say we have carried out an investigation, and we can have evidence of certain offences that we put forward.

An Advice And Guidance report is – the word is in it – here’s the circumstances that we’ve uncovered. We’re seeking your advice and guidance on where we go next. That’s really important – in those occasions where there’s a circumstance that you need to examine, that’s for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to give us advice on where we go next.

[WINGS COMMENT: In the above paragraphs, ACC Houston denies seven times in a row that the police made any decision that there was insufficient evidence to charge Nicola Sturgeon, flatly contradicting the assertions made to the contrary by Crown Agent John Logue.]

GLENN CAMPBELL: Would you be happy for that report, that advice and guidance file that you sent into the Crown, to be published?

STUART HOUSTON: Something we need to be very mindful of is that is a lot of information, some of that is sensitive information regarding other individuals. And again, that is a report that is shared between the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and-

GLENN CAMPBELL: You’re not saying no.

STUART HOUSTON: That wouldn’t be a matter for the police to release that information.

GLENN CAMPBELL: But would you be comfortable if eventually that was put into the public domain?

STUART HOUSTON: That [wouldn’t] be a matter for us, we’ve delivered that to the Crown Office and any release of information from that would be a matter for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Did Nicola Sturgeon fully cooperate with your investigation? Would that be a fair way to characterize her engagement?

STUART HOUSTON: She was subject to arrest and interviewed. As has been reported and released by herself, she provided a written statement to the police following that interaction. For those circumstances, she provided a written account which was obviously taken in and assessed by ourselves.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Full cooperation or not?

STUART HOUSTON: Whether someone is fully cooperative is probably a difficult situation, the fact is when someone is under arrest, the fact is they have a right not to say anything, that is someone’s right. Regarding cooperation I think we’d probably need to define that, the fact is someone made themselves available and provided a written update to us — I would say that is cooperating.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Did she answer all your questions in the written statement?

STUART HOUSTON: There was a lot of information in there, it’s not something I would be able to go into in great detail. The fact is that someone has provided information to us – bearing in mind, she didn’t need to at that point – but has provided information to us that has been assessed by police.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Is it reasonable for her to say that she’s been cleared as a result of this investigation and not being prosecuted?

STUART HOUSTON: The word “cleared” — it’s not for the police to clear people. That’s for the police to carry out an investigation and report the circumstances to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

The word “cleared” could have a number of different meanings. The fact is that we reported the circumstances and there was no further action and no prosecution, that can be determined by us reporting what we had to report to the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service.

GLENN CAMPBELL: And that report didn’t include wrongdoing on her part?

STUART HOUSTON: That report concluded an outline of a number of circumstances involving not just Nicola Sturgeon.

[WINGS COMMENT: That’s an interesting total evasion of the question.]

GLENN CAMPBELL: A number of items that were purchased with ill-gotten funds were used for items that then became the possession of Nicola Sturgeon. Has she handed those over to the police?

STUART HOUSTON: There’s no items that have come to my attention that have been handed over by Nicola Sturgeon.

[WINGS COMMENT: That’s a mildly extraordinary revelation. Scots law requires that the recipient of stolen goods give them back once they discover their provenance, even if they received them in good faith with no reason to suspect they were stolen. Not to do so is the criminal offence of reset.]

GLENN CAMPBELL: Should she hand over those items that have been identified?

STUART HOUSTON: That’s not a question for ourselves. The fact is that items that have been purchased through embezzled funds may be subject to further proceedings under the Proceeds Of Crime Act. Again that is very much a matter for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

GLENN CAMPBELL: How much of the stuff that you identified that’s listed in the indictment has been recovered?

STUART HOUSTON: I actually don’t know the full answer to that. What I would say is that there’s a number of items that we were aware of that had been purchased were recovered from the home address.

GLENN CAMPBELL: What stuff has been handed in by others, not the direct subjects of this investigation?

STUART HOUSTON: There were items that had come to the attention of individuals within the SNP who highlighted them to us and handed them over, which were items that had been purchased we believed through the embezzled funds.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Any examples?

STUART HOUSTON: I can’t recall off the top of my head what they all were, but there was a number of different things.

GLENN CAMPBELL: What would you say to anybody who thinks that they might have something that was bought with SNP funds that had been embezzled by Peter Murrell? Should they come forward to the police? Should they be handing those things in?

STUART HOUSTON: That’s a matter for individuals, and again individuals may want to seek advice on that. It’s probably not for me as the police to say.

[WINGS COMMENT: Yes it flipping is! The law is absolutely clear – if someone gives you something and later you find out they stole it, you are unambiguously and definitely supposed to give it back! Sheesh.]

We have carried out our investigation to trace items that we believed were in possession of Peter Murrell, which we did do. I think you also need to understand that some of those purchases were some time ago and may no longer exist.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Have you any sense of why he did what he did?

STUART HOUSTON: We have someone who had the ability to manipulate records and has had that opportunity to do things that has allowed them to make purchases. As I think I said at the time of his plea of guilty, he was funding a lifestyle that I don’t think his salary could afford, and he saw an opportunity.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Do we know for sure that he wasn’t offending before 2010?

STUART HOUSTON: As you know and I’ve already highlighted, financial records and banking transactions are only kept for certain periods of time. That would only be speculation in the fact of anything beyond what we were able to place and report to the Procurator Fiscal.

GLENN CAMPBELL: So the investigations by the police and the Crown didn’t look back further than that?

STUART HOUSTON: We went as far back as we possibly could in relation to what evidence we had. And as I say, financial institutions and other areas may not keep records for any long periods of time.

GLENN CAMPBELL: So we don’t know?

STUART HOUSTON: It’s not something I’d be able to speculate or comment upon.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Going back to the very beginning and the first of a number of complaints, Sean Clerkin has told the BBC he initially tried to report his concerns at Helen Street Police Station and was told that they would not take a complaint against the First Minister and Peter Murrell. Is that possible?

STUART HOUSTON: I’m aware that an individual did try to report this probably a few days before he actually made a report to another police station in the Glasgow area. My understanding is that he was spoken to and it was explained to him that police were now taking a statement from him at the second calling.

I don’t understand, I don’t know the full circumstances why it wasn’t taken on the first occasion, but what I can say is when, certainly, the team that I oversaw became aware of it, he was engaged with from that moment onwards.

GLENN CAMPBELL: But does that suggest that the police, or at least some of the police, were a bit scared of taking on people in such high-profile and high-ranking political positions?

STUART HOUSTON: I don’t think you could say that. The fact is someone came in to make a complaint which from the very outset you can see is quite complex and involves financial investigation that requires specialisms. And hence why, certainly when it came to my attention, the right specialisms were put in place to engage with that individual to gather what information he had.

[WINGS COMMENT: As we’ve noted already the original crime complained of was not complex at all. It involves just two, undisputed, facts.]

GLENN CAMPBELL: Just looking back on the whole thing — the five years of energy and effort, the expense, several million pounds — has it all been worth it?

STUART HOUSTON: People have come forward to tell us something, and there were others that told us matters in this, and I think we need to acknowledge there were other witnesses here and other people who came forward to say that this isn’t right – the fact is that would be able to find some answers for those individuals.

But you can’t take away the fact that Peter Murrell was a person in a position of trust, seen as a political figure within Scotland, and he has been embezzling funds that had come into a political party.

Whoever that may be, the police are going to investigate and report those circumstances and, where possible, bring that person to justice.

GLENN CAMPBELL: Assistant Chief Constable, thank you very much.

STUART HOUSTON: Thank you.

.

[NOTE: Transcript partly edited by AI for readability. It has been manually checked by a human, but minor errors may remain, because nobody’s perfect.]