IN THE SHERIFF COURT OF GRAMPIAN, HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS
AT
ABERDEEN
MOTION FOR THE ACCUSED RECALL WITNESS STEADWOOD
SCS Ref: SCS/2025-003979
Local Ref: ABE/2025-000145
PF Ref: AB25000403-001
Police Ref: PSSECR53W1224
SCRO No: S129419/83N
Date lodged - 27th October 2025
Lodged by the accused representing himself
DOCUMENT CONTENTS
- TITLE PAGE
- DOCUMENT CONTENTS
- RECALL WITNESS STEADWOOD
- HEARING OF 17th SEPTEMBER 2025
- WITNESS DARREN STEADWOOD
- LINE OF QUESTIONING
- RECALL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION
- SHERIFF IAN WALLACE PRESIDING
- NO PHOTOGRAPH
- PLEAS IN LAW
RECALL WITNESS STEADWOOD
The Accused moves the court to recall the prosecution’s witness Darren Steadwood, for further cross-examination by the defence, at the next or a subsequent trial diet of this case.
The Accused was arrested after his social media post was referred to the police by Darren Steadwood, an “Information Security Analyst” of the Scottish Parliament’s “Social Media Monitoring Service” - a euphemism for a fledgling Scottish Parliament Gestapo.
- TITLE PAGE
- DOCUMENT CONTENTS
- RECALL WITNESS STEADWOOD
- HEARING OF 17th SEPTEMBER 2025
- WITNESS DARREN STEADWOOD
- LINE OF QUESTIONING
- RECALL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION
- SHERIFF IAN WALLACE PRESIDING
- NO PHOTOGRAPH
- PLEAS IN LAW
RECALL WITNESS STEADWOOD
HEARING OF 17th SEPTEMBER 2025
WITNESS DARREN STEADWOOD
The prosecution called a witness Darren Steadwood to testify before Sheriff Ian Wallace presiding in an Aberdeen Sheriff Court at a hearing on 17th September 2025.
Sheriff Wallace stopped the defence’s cross-examination of Steadwood in a manner reported on by the Press and Journal - September 18, 2025 - quoted below.
‘You are not asking him about Call of Duty’
When Dow’s questioning then turned to Mr Steadwood’s use of the computer game Call of Duty 2, where players shoot members of the Taliban, the sheriff halted the proceedings and asked the witness to step outside of the courtroom.
Turning to Dow, Sheriff Wallace said: “We don’t have time to unpick all the reasons why that question is just not relevant.
“You are not asking him about Call of Duty.”
When the trial resumed and Dow’s cross-examination continued, he asked Mr Steadwood about his YouTube channel – featuring him playing Call of Duty.
Sheriff Wallace interrupted again and brought the cross-examination to a close and asked the witness to leave the court.
“I’m not allowing you to ask any more questions,” he told Dow.
Time may have been short towards the end of the hearing of September 17th but there has since been plenty of time for the defence to produce this document herein to show the reasons why that question was intended to be the beginning of a very relevant indeed line of questioning, illustrated below.
A competent sheriff who takes the time and who has the patience to indulge the defence’s list of questions, reproduced below, can understand how such questioning intends to reveal the inconsistency, hypocrisy, arrogance and intellectual laziness of the witness Darren Steadwood.
The defence’s cross-examination is intended to scrutinise Steadwood’s failure to recognise and to admit that the Accused’s X post, reported to police by Steadwood, is transparently for a reliable witness not motivated by “racial hatred” in its criticism of Pakistan and Pakistanis for secretly supporting terrorism etc. - but the Accused’s post is just as non-racist as Steadwood’s game-playing and just as non-racist as this country’s military fighting our enemies.
LINE OF QUESTIONING
The defence has this important line of questioning still to put to the witness Darren Steadwood which Sheriff Wallace did not allow the defence to develop at the previous hearing.
1. Mr Steadwood, do you or have ever you played the Call of Duty computer-game?
“Call of Duty is a first-person shooter military video game series and media franchise” - Wikipedia
2. There was a YouTube channel in the name of “Darren Steadwood” (see snapshot image saved by the defence below) which featured recorded gameplay from the “Call of Duty” game but which channel has recently been deleted - was that your channel?
3. Did you delete your Youtube channel after it was unexpectedly mentioned in court by the defence at the earlier September hearing?
4. You weren’t attempting to hide evidence which the defence considers to be of relevance to this case to attempt to defeat the ends of justice, were you, Mr Steadwood?
5. So presumably as an experienced player of Call of Duty you are aware that many of the games of Call of Duty are set in Afghanistan?
6. Perhaps you may or may not be aware that in one level (Fallen Angel) of one game (Black Ops II), the enemy fighters are the Pakistani ISI, the Inter-Services Intelligence?
7. But can we presume that in these Call of Duty war games, whether set in Afghanistan, Pakistan or elsewhere, there is no incitement to a racial hatred motivation for players in any of the game plots? Players are not encouraged to shoot enemy fighters, for any reasons of “racial hatred” against Afghans or Pakistanis, correct?
8. Do you agree that, in the real 20 year war in Afghanistan, British soldiers and our American and coalition allies were also not fighting for “racial hatred” reasons but were fighting the Taliban, their Al Qaeda terrorist guests in Afghanistan, or on occasion in Pakistan, for War on Terrorism aims which are to defend our people from terrorist attacks organised by Al Qaeda, assisted by their Taliban hosts and by the Pakistani ISI? Our real war was against terrorism, not for “racial hatred”, correct?
9. Is it also reasonable to state that it would appear to be malicious to falsely attribute “racial hatred” motivations to either gameplayers or governments who deployed our soldiers to Afghanistan?
10. Are you aware that Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda was tracked by the CIA to a Pakistani safehouse where he was killed by US Special Forces without prior notice to, or the cooperation of, the Pakistani authorities?
11. Will you please view with the court this 2 minute video, which shows the introduction of a 2011 BBC Panorama “Secret Pakistan” series revealing the extent of the complicity of the Pakistani military in supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists.
- Display with loud sound the defence’s digital production video “BBC’s Secret Pakistan - introduction”
12. Do you accept at face value the truth of the revelations which the introduction to the BBC Panorama programme makes about Pakistan -that Pakistan in international relations plays a double game, secretly supporting our terrorist enemies while pretending to be our good-faith allies in the War on Terrorism?
13. Do you accept that the Accused’s social media criticism of Pakistan and Pakistanis, including Scottish-Pakistani Scottish Government minister Kaukab Stewart MSP, could reasonably be motivated by the same intent of the War on Terrorism which is to defend the people, in particular our people in this country against terrorism secretly organised by Pakistan?
14. Are you aware how the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, supported by Pakistan, abuses, violates the human rights of or executes Afghan girls and women?
15. Will you please view with the court this video downloaded from a post on X of the Pakistani-supported Taliban stoning an Afghan girl to death?
- Display with loud sound the defence’s digital production video “Afghan girl stoned to death by the Taliban”. Length 26 seconds.
16. Do you accept that it is reasonable for the Accused to criticise Scottish-Pakistani Kaukab Stewart for her uncritical political support for Pakistan in the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament and for her failure to criticise Pakistan for its role in supporting the Taliban abusing the women and girls of Afghanistan, thereby betraying the Scottish Government, Parliament and People as “Equalities Minister”?
17. Wasn’t it very unfair for you to malign the Accused’s social media post referencing his sound reasons for criticising Kaukab Stewart as something his post is not - “racially abusive” - simply on the pretext that the Accused used the abbreviation “Paki” in place of the unabbreviated word “Pakistani”?
18. Your job is intended to censor, not merely to “monitor” social media posting isn’t it? Do you even know what the word “monitor” means? In medicine, a heart monitor provides helpful information to doctors about how the patient’s heart is working. That’s “monitoring”. Whereas in crime, a stab to heart can kill the victim. Stabbing is not heart “monitoring”. Your reporting of my post to the police for censorship was more like a stab to the heart, killing my democratic freedom of expression than it was like a heart monitor, wasn’t it? As far as democracy is concerned, your job employs you as a state-criminal, a Gestapo officer, to stab at Scotland’s democratic freedoms, doesn’t it?
19. What is the name of your immediate supervisor of your unit - the man who was formerly employed as a police inspector? We know that you are the number 2 Gestapo officer at the Scottish Parliament but Scotland’s democrats would like to learn the name of the number 1 Gestapo officer too? You have sworn to tell the whole truth so tell us the whole truth about who supervises you in your job? What’s his name?
So this line of questioning leads from a starting point of Steadwood’s own non-racist game-playing behaviour, in a logical progression, to the Accused’s also non-racist social media posting behaviour.
Both persons, the Accused and the witness, exhibit, whether in game-play or in social media posting, not entirely unrelated non-racist, anti-terrorist inspirations, motivations and intent.
If an equivalently non-racial-hatred intent to oppose related game/real world enemies can hopefully be agreed in cross-examination then Steadwood may oblige the defence by accepting his error in reporting the Accused’s social media post to the police.
Alternatively, if Steadwood stubbornly maintains that unlike game-players like him, real world political activists like the Accused strangely “cannot” have non-racial-hatred intentions against real world enemies often represented in game-play then this witness can be shown to be inconsistent, a hypocrite, arrogant, intellectually lazy and therefore an unreliable witness.
RECALL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION
Considering all of the above, the defence insists that, in the interests of justice, to allow the defence a full and a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, Sheriff Wallace is obliged to support the defence’s motion and order Darren Steadwood be recalled for further cross-examination by the defence at the next or a subsequent trial diet.
Alternatively, if Sheriff Wallace unjustly and maliciously refuses to permit a further hearing of cross-examination of the witness Darren Steadwood, thereby wilfully sabotaging the defence’s cross-examination of this witness in order to defeat the ends of justice, then in the interests of justice, Sheriff Wallace should recuse himself from any further involvement in this case, leaving another Sheriff to pick up the legal pieces.
“I’m not allowing you to ask any more questions,” - Sheriff Wallace
Sheriff Wallace may refuse to reverse himself and refuse to recuse himself believing arrogantly that he can follow Steadwood and the Scottish Parliament’s fledgling Gestapo unit to tell vile lies about the Accused and fit the Accused up on these false charges with no consequences to his legal career. If so, good luck with that, Wallace.
SHERIFF IAN WALLACE PRESIDING
Ian Wallace studied at the University of Glasgow and the Free University of Berlin. He graduated with first class honours in Scots Law and German Language. He started his traineeship with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in 2003. He then worked as a Procurator Fiscal Depute in Dumfries, Edinburgh, and Crown Office. In 2014, he qualified as a Solicitor Advocate and was appointed an Advocate Depute. He was appointed as a Summary Sheriff in 2018. He was appointed as a Sheriff in 2021.
- From the Judiciary Scotland website
NO PHOTOGRAPH
The defence could not find a photograph of Ian Wallace online to reproduce here, unfortunately. Photographs of judges and prosecutors should be published for the purpose of holding those who misrule us accountable.
So given that the defence’s preliminary pleas and objections to this Gestapo-style arrest, charges and undemocratic prosecution have been so cursorily overruled and the prosecution’s case not been lawfully dismissed at an earlier diet but rather indulged firstly by Sheriff Johnston and then by Sheriff Wallace, somewhat in the manner of a Nazi political show-trial, the defence has substituted here the photograph of an infamous Nazi judge, Roland Freisler.
The defence assumes that Sheriff Wallace would not wish his court to suffer any further comparison with a Nazi court nor he with Freisler, an enemy of justice who was fortuitously killed when his Berlin court building was bombed by the US Air Force in 1945. His Nazi colleagues faced justice at a Nuremberg tribunal.
The defence presumes that Sheriff Wallace was educated about how the Nazis perverted the German legal system and so the defence asks that he not allow Aberdeen Sheriff Court to be likewise perverted as this prosecution intends.
PLEAS IN LAW
The motion to recall witness Darren Steadwood to this Sheriff Court trial is craved with reference to the legal power for the presiding judge which is specified in Section 263 (5) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
“(5) In any trial, on the motion of either party, the presiding judge may permit a witness who has been examined to be recalled.”
No comments:
Post a Comment