The Recent Supreme Court Rulings – What They Tell Us About The State Of the Legal System

Two landmark Supreme Court rulings took centre stage in the second week of November this year, though you wouldn’t actually know it from the limited news coverage.

The first (12^th November 2025) was the written ruling regarding whether or not the Human Rights of David Daly and Andrew Keir were breached in their trials on sexual offences. First heard in March of this year, it took the court 8 months to publish its ruling and though it was acknowledged that current practice MIGHT be violating a defendant’s human rights, the appeal of these two men was unanimously dismissed so far as that ground was concerned.

The second (13^th November 2025) was the hearing to determine David Daly’s application on other grounds. The appeal was granted verbally, but the live stream was taken down immediately afterwards in the interests, (apparently/allegedly), of ‘safeguard[ing] the identity  of vulnerable individuals’, an interesting claim given the live-stream was available for viewing for hours in real time, no names of complainers were spoken and it was watched with great interest by many. No date has been given for the ruling to be published.

The first ruling attracted much comment, the second less so, as might well be imagined, but the second especially will, I anticipate, create something of an earthquake in due course when we, the public, are finally ‘allowed’ to know the details. I’d go so far as to say that the judiciary are running scared. What have they got to be concerned about? Potentially, very great deal, though Matthew Scott, a respected  English barrister and blogger, fears that it will be a damp squib and that nothing much will change after a first flurry of appeals get kicked into the long grass by court backlogs and delays.

But AccusedScot, a prominent commentator on X had this to say for a start and Dr Stuart Waiton, the academic lambasted for daring to allow JIMS, a group campaigning for fair trials to talk to his students commented here, quite rightly observing that ‘the court is having its cake and eating it’.

Both he and the campaigning group JIMS have been fully vindicated and the court agrees with them (and any right-minded person with common sense, I would say), that accused rapists, (accused anyone), are entitled to a fair trial – and just as importantly, may not currently be getting them. Who would reasonably argue against fair trials? Quite a few it would seem.

Dorothy Bain KC, the Lord Advocate of Scotland immediately sought to reassure victims, (note the failure of Scotland’s leading lawyer to use the legally correct term ‘complainers’), with a commitment that there will be a ‘renewed focus on ensuring perpetrators will be prosecuted’ and Sandy Brindley of Rape Crisis Scotland expressed the fear the women could be put off reporting and ‘now find themselves in an uncertain position’.

There has never been ANY suggestion that any of the so-called ‘rape shield laws’ should be repealed or that the oppressive and harassing questioning of the past should return. 

Rape Crisis is a pressure group that has an agenda that has no legal weight or standing and seems to serve only to keep genuine victims in fear and even create false ones. It’s part of a self-creating industry and there is absolutely nothing for genuine victims to be uncertain about. The Lord Advocate on the other hand has a dual role. On the one hand she is the chief prosecutor for Scotland (equivalent to the DPP in England and Wales), and on the other, the legal adviser to the government. Some would say that those two roles are a conflict of interests.

But that’s a bigger conversation for another day. For present purposes, she has a duty to ensure that prosecutions comply with the law AND ARE FAIR, a duty that has been grossly neglected.

But back to the here-and-now and the hearing that took place on 13^th November 2025. It has fallen to JIMS, the group campaigning for fair trials to clarify exactly what took place in the Daly appeal, to post their clarification on both Facebook and X and I reproduce it in full here:

"Clarifying the Daly Appeal

Given any lack of publicly available information – and the false reports circulation in the media – it’s important to set out the facts accurately.

David Daly’s appeal was not rejected.

Only the human rights violation ground was refused. The Supreme Court recognised significant additional concerns in his case, including issues around disclosure. The appeal itself was granted, which I personally witnessed back in March. And on 13/11/2025, the full appeal hearing took place – something many of us at JIMS watched via the live feed. Without having been physically present in March, and without having watched the appeal live last week, we would have almost no reliable information at all. The broadcast was available in real time yet the recording has not been published and transcripts remain unavailable. This raises serious questions given the public interest. During the hearing, the defence – led by Roddy Dunlop KC – delivered an outstanding and highly detailed argument. He made full use of the recent Supreme Court judgement, pressing the court on core failings that cut right to the heart of a fair trial.

Key issues raised included:

·       Serious disclosure failures, including missing social work reports, statements and recordings

·       Clear prejudice to the defence caused by these omissions

·       A history of previous false allegations

·       Evidence of collusion and identifiable motives for false allegations

The Crown openly accepted severe disclosure failures, attributing them to multiple overlapping police investigations. Crucially, they conceded that Daly’s case may be only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to systemic disclosure problems in Scotland.

Throughout the hearing the judges appeared engaged, thoughtful and acutely aware of the gravity of what they were hearing.

The outcome of this appeal will have major implications, not only for Daly, but for the integrity of Scotland’s justice system and for every family affected by wrongful convictions."

Wow!

What does it say about the judicial system in Scotland that it takes a group of families with a solid belief in the unfairness of trials and the fact of wrongful convictions, to not only have to fight against a barrage of misinformation and abuse, but even when vindicated by the Supreme Court, they have to counter the misinformation presented by feminists, who seem to not want fair trials at all? I wonder what their stance would be if it was women who were the prime victims - and victims they are - of unfair trials and wrongful convictions.

No change is wrested from governments and government systems, as I have said before, without them kicking and screaming every step of the way.

Disclosure failures were raised as an issue in England in 2017 with a flurry of cases, headed up by that of Liam Allan. Promises of change were made and many cases were examined and dropped but, yet, the same issues continue. Eight years have gone by and only now is Scotland discovering ‘Oops! It seems the same things are going on here!!’

It’s disgraceful that Dorothy Bain, KC, and the authorities at large, come to that, have had nothing constructive to say so far and mainstream media is largely silent when it comes to reporting on what minority groups and campaigning individuals have to say – presumably because it would chip at the idea that the only people of importance in this sorry situation are self-confessed and unchallenged victims (see here, here and here).

Where was the nationally broadcast reassurance for accused men that they can be certain that they will receive a fair trial? Or the reassurance for genuine victims that the ruling will ensure that convictions are safe and they will get the justice and closure that they need? Advocates, in particular Thomas Ross KC, have argued for years that fairness has been ‘vanishingly rare’, (my slightly tongue-in-cheek description, not his), in rape and sexual offence trials for the defendant and he noted that ‘It’s shameful that it took 5 justices in London to tell our [Scottish] judges how to do their job. That said, there will likely be implications for the England and Wales judiciary that are yet to make themselves known.

The biggest question is what will happen now? Will there be meaningful change? Will the Supreme Court actually give guidance as to how to implement the law correctly or will judges just be left to muddle along and carry on in the same way without oversight?

No genuine victim need fear the outcome of a fair trial. They are needed for all crimes in all courts. Any victim of a sexual crime who found themselves accused of any crime would want THEIR trial to be fair, would they not? But Rape Crisis Scotland and The Lord Advocate are doing their best to reassure complainers that THEIR rights will not be affected and they are not going to be affected in any way by these rulings. No such reassurances for defendants, (and by default the victims of false allegations and wrongful convictions), and one only has to look at the funding for each to see where the national priorities lie.

In 2024, Rape Crisis’s income in Scotland measured in the £millions, much of it from government, some from donations, while MOJO, (Miscarriages of Justice Organisation), an organisation set up by Paddy Hill of The Birmingham 6 in 2001 which helps people newly released from prison having suffered a wrongful conviction, is given less than £200k by government, struggles to get that and struggles even more to be seen and heard. There is virtually no interest, politically or nationally, in the harms that a wrongful conviction can do and the effort and cost that goes into even beginning to put them right.

Rape Crisis funding is apparently never enough, while people like Andy Malkinson are left to live in a tent and those whose convictions are quashed or who are remanded and released without charge are routinely chucked out on the streets with nothing but a travel warrant if that, left to pick up the pieces of their lives with no help whatsoever. Anyone arrested and questioned is left to make their own way home if they are released on bail and woe betide them if they don’t have money or a phone to use to ask for help, or a friend/family member aware of the arrest and available to pick them up. The police or prison will generally allow a phone call, but there is no obligation to do so or duty of care except in very specific exceptional circumstances.

Moreover, people like Andrew Malkinson, Brian Buckle, Peter Sullivan, the families of those driven to despair and suicide and many others falsely accused and dragged through the courts or NFA’d (No Further Action) bear their victimhood with dignity and quiet desperation. Andrew Malkinson had to campaign ferociously through his solicitors for compensation, Brian Buckle has been denied any at all, Peter Sullivan, having served almost 40 years in prison for a crime that he did not commit, quite reasonably wanted an apology for his ordeal and received nothing more than a mealy-mouthed ‘we regret....’ from the Merseyside Police force and Jay Cheshire’s sister, along with the families of those devastated or even murdered by vigilantes get on with their lives without another thought from the authorities or public at large.

Contrast that with the many women who seem to be only able to navigate life though the lens of their victimhood, keeping themselves in the spotlight for years and insisting that victimhood empowers them. A bit of a disconnect there? No? Both courts and complainants having their cake and eating it?

We can clearly tell where the political priorities lie, given that, as said, the authorities rush to reassure complainers that they will be protected and fail to reassure defendants that they can be sure that their trial will be fair. That in itself is unfairness, and the accused, never mind the falsely accused, are going to need some convincing that their interests and needs will receive any consideration at all.

Today, 19^th November 2025, International Men’s Day, I’m left with the hope that the Supreme Court has taken a step to stop the creation of female victims where there are none and the creation of victims of false allegations where there are too many. No right-minded person wants either, but it remains to be seen what the next steps will be

Until that tide is turned, what we have is not a legal system, it’s a prosecution system, a system where a defendant’s evidence is too often ruled ‘inadmissible’ and a complainer’s word is king (or queen); a system not worthy of any civilised country.

By Felicity Stryjak

Felicity Stryjak is retired having worn many hats in her life so far, teacher and paralegal among them. She was born in Torquay in 1953 and has lived in a variety of interesting places both in the UK and abroad. She intends Scotland to be her final place of abode. More recently Felicity created Falsely Accused Database to challenge the myth that false allegations are 'vanishingly rare'.

Please let us know if you think that there is a mistake in this article, explaining what you think is wrong and why. We will correct any errors as soon as possible.