A Landmark Judgment for Justice: Why Daly & Keir v HMA Signals a Turning Point for Fair Trials in Scotland

On 12 November 2025, the UK Supreme Court issued one of the most consequential criminal justice rulings Scotland has seen in decades. In Daly v HMA; Keir v HMA [2025] UKSC 38, the Court delivered a message as clear as it was overdue:

Scotland’s current approach to evidence in sexual-offence trials is liable to violate the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This judgment is not a technical footnote. It goes right to the heart of how Scotland prosecutes sexual offences—and how easily innocent people can be swept into wrongful convictions when the defence is prevented from presenting the full truth.

For years, campaigners, defence lawyers, and families of the falsely accused have warned that Scottish courts increasingly shut out evidence that juries should hear—evidence that could help them decide whether allegations are true or not.

Now the UK Supreme Court has confirmed those fears.

---

The Supreme Court’s message: the system is not fair enough

In a devastating assessment, the Court found that the Scottish appeal courts have developed a rigid and restrictive rule that treats almost any evidence outside the literal wording of the charge as “collateral” and therefore inadmissible. This includes:

evidence affecting the complainer’s credibility

evidence of previous consensual behaviour relevant to consent

evidence that could reasonably strengthen the defence case

The Supreme Court held plainly that this approach is incompatible with Article 6 because it stops juries from hearing relevant evidence that could prevent wrongful convictions.

The Court emphasised that fairness is not optional:

Measures protecting complainers are allowed, but only if they can be reconciled with an adequate and effective exercise of the rights of the defence.

In other words: you cannot protect one party by destroying the fair trial rights of the other.

---

Scotland must now change its entire approach

The judgment is far-reaching. The Court ruled that:

Scotland’s current rules must be modified

The High Court of Justiciary must change its interpretation of what evidence is admissible

The justice system should expect “disruption and delay” while it recalibrates

This is as close to a constitutional intervention as the Supreme Court ever gets. For decades, sexual-offence trials in Scotland have been shaped by a narrow and often ideology-driven approach to admissibility—particularly in cases where the only real issue is credibility.

The Supreme Court has now said that approach is not just wrong—it is unlawful.

---

Why this matters for real people

Most sexual-offence trials in Scotland hinge on one decisive question:

Is the complainer telling the truth?

Yet evidence central to that question has routinely been shut out, because courts treated anything outside the charge as “collateral.”

The Supreme Court exposed how dangerous that approach is. In Poropat v Slovenia, which the Court relied on heavily, the refusal to admit credibility evidence led to a finding of an unfair trial.

The UK Supreme Court made it clear that Scotland has been straying into the same territory.

It also reaffirmed the core principle:

An accused person must be allowed to lead evidence that can reasonably strengthen their defence.

Without that, you don't have a fair trial—you have a foregone conclusion.

---

The false allegation problem can no longer be denied

One of the appeals—Daly—concerned an allegation made years after the alleged offences, which the defence argued was demonstrably false. The Court accepted the relevance of this kind of evidence to credibility.

But under Scottish law as it currently stands, such evidence would automatically be excluded as collateral. That, the Court said, is a path straight to injustice.

Even though Daly’s individual appeal was dismissed (because the evidence was not proven to be deliberately false), the Supreme Court made clear that the Scottish rule itself is defective and risks wrongful convictions across many cases.

This is a damning criticism of the way sexual-offence trials have been run in Scotland for years.

---

A turning point for justice—and for the falsely accused

As the founder of the Falsely Accused Network, I welcome this ruling wholeheartedly. It brings judicial recognition to what thousands of innocent men have been screaming into the void:

You cannot get to the truth if the defence is prevented from showing the jury the truth.

Fair trials protect both genuine victims and the wrongly accused. When the system gets it wrong, everyone loses—victims, families, communities, and the rule of law itself.

This judgment restores the principle that has been eroded by years of politicised decision-making:

Justice must be fair, or it is not justice at all.

---

Scotland must now rebuild trust

This judgment is not the end. It is the beginning. The Supreme Court has effectively ordered:

new guidance for judges

new legal interpretations

revisiting previous case law that shut out defence evidence

a rebalancing of how sexual-offence trials are conducted

And crucially:

The defence must be allowed to challenge credibility properly.

If Scotland acts swiftly and in good faith, this ruling can:

prevent miscarriages of justice

restore public confidence

ensure that juries hear the whole story

protect both victims and innocent defendants

---

Our position moving forward

The Falsely Accused Network fully supports the Supreme Court’s clear directive that Scotland’s justice system must change.

Fair trials are not negotiable.

Credibility evidence is not optional.

And no accused person should ever again be silenced in a court of law by a rule that the UK’s highest court has now declared unfit for purpose.

This judgment is a watershed moment—for Scotland, for justice, and for everyone fighting to ensure the innocent are protected as fiercely as the law protects the vulnerable.

And we will be watching closely to ensure that Scotland listens.

We at the Falsely Accused Network proudly stand in full support of Justice for Innocent Men Scotland (JIMS) for their relentless dedication to defending men in Scotland who have been falsely accused and campaigning vigorously for genuine reform in our justice system.

Their work shines a spotlight on the critical need for fair trials, transparency and accountability when wrongful allegations threaten lives, reputations and communities.

If you or someone you know wants to connect with JIMS, learn more or get involved, you can visit their website here: www.jimsscotland.org