From BBC Scotland in 2019:

A former [Labour] councillor has been convicted of taking more than £8,000 from a local charity where she worked. Yvonne Kucuk, 52, was the company secretary for the People’s Development Trust in Dalmarnock, Glasgow.

The trust ran the £3.5m Commonwealth Games legacy hub in the area, which was launched by football legend Sir Kenny Dalglish in 2015. But, later financial concerns led to auditors looking over the organisation’s books.

Kucuk – ex-Labour councillor for the city’s Calton area – and the trust’s project manager William Faulds, 55, were eventually held by police. A trial heard that payments had been made to someone called “Johnny the Turk” for apparent literacy services. The individual was never traced.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48109151

Kucuk did not plead guilty and the People’s Development Trust collapsed into administration but she was still not jailed.

Why was that surprising?

Breach of trust is a key aggravating factor in fraud/embezzlement cases across the UK. Scottish legal resources explicitly note that offending against a charity or where the victim is vulnerable raises seriousness because of the “special or heightened level of trust.”

See:

The nature of the trust that has been betrayed is also relevant. If the accused is solely entrusted by the owner or company and has complete autonomy over the movement of the funds for example that would be considered adversely against an accused.

The nature and vulnerability of the trustor is also relevant. For example, if the trustor was a child, or was otherwise incapable of looking after their own affairs, that would be taken into account in sentencing, as it would if the trustor was a charity. In these circumstances a special or heightened level of trust exists which makes the offence more serious.

Whether the nature and extent of the embezzlement calls for a deterrent sentence of imprisonment to be imposed.

The consequence of the embezzlement on the victim. For example, if a business has been forced to cease trading, or the quality of the victim’s life has been badly affected.

https://criminaldefencesolutions.com/embezzlement-defence-lawyers-scotland.html

Here’s why the Labour councillor’s crime was, to my mind, greater:

The Trust went into administration in January 2019 and closed suddenly. This led to:

• Nursery closure (major disruption for local families).
• Other community services stopped.
• Around 23 staff made redundant.
• A petition with over 1,000 signatures calling for it to reopen.

This caused real, tangible harm to vulnerable people in a deprived community — lost services, lost jobs, lost opportunities. https://tfn.scot/news/legacy-hub-closes-suddenly

Might media coverage of these two crimes have influenced the judge’s discretion?

Yes, media coverage very likely played an indirect role in shaping the broader context and scrutiny around both cases, though direct influence on a judge’s sentencing discretion is limited and officially discouraged.

Scale of Media Coverage

• Kucuk case (2019): Primarily local Glasgow/Scottish media (BBC Scotland, Glasgow Times, Herald). Coverage was factual, focused on the trial details, the small sum (£8k), the charity’s collapse, and the non-custodial sentence. No sustained national or political firestorm. Little criticism of the sentence itself was reported. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48109151
• Murrell case (2026): Intense national and international coverage (BBC, Sky, ITV, Guardian, Al Jazeera, etc.). It was tied to Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP’s finances, Operation Branchform, and Scottish independence politics. Headlines focused on the £400k, luxury purchases (motorhome, cars, jewellery), fake invoices, and the “gross breach of trust.” There was live court reporting, political commentary, and significant public/political pressure for a “hefty” sentence. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yzlqv4dyeo

Murrell’s case generated far more heat due to its high political profile.

Could This Influence a Judge?

Indirectly, yes — through heightened public and institutional awareness:

• Judges in Scotland (especially in the High Court for serious cases like Murrell’s) are aware of public interest and media scrutiny. High-profile cases often attract more detailed written sentencing statements to explain reasoning and demonstrate fairness.
• Intense media focus can amplify perceptions of harm (e.g., damage to public trust in politics for Murrell) and increase calls for deterrence. Studies in various jurisdictions show media/public opinion can subtly influence sentencing in high-visibility cases, even if judges deny it. https://iacajournal.org/articles/10.36745/ijca.528

In low-profile local cases like Kucuk’s, lighter sentences attract less attention and less pressure for toughness. In politically charged national cases, outcomes face far greater public and media examination, which can indirectly reinforce stricter application of aggravating factors.

Media coverage likely contributed to the atmosphere of scrutiny in Murrell’s case making a lenient outcome politically and publicly harder.