Yesterday, I lodged with Edinburgh Sheriff Court the 9-page document titled "Document June'26 for the Accused".
To quote -
IN THE SHERIFF COURT OF LOTHIAN AND BORDERS
AT
EDINBURGH
DOCUMENT June’26 FOR THE ACCUSED
in
Procurator Fiscal, EDINBURGH
against
ALASTAIR PETER DOW, B.Sc.(Hons)
PF Ref: ED25014082
SCS Ref: SCS/2025-094701
Local Ref: EDI/2025-010308
Police No: PSSECRWCH0725
Lodged by email - 11th June 2026
Lodged by the accused representing himself
Link to view on-line
CONTENTS PAGE
DOCUMENT June’26 FOR THE ACCUSED 1
CONTENTS 2
DEFENCE LODGED 23rd FEBRUARY ‘26 3
DEFENCE LAPTOP THEFT 3
EMAILS TO LORD PROVOST 3
X ACCOUNT “@_Peter_Dow” 5
MOTION TO RETURN LAPTOP 5
ARREST/HEARING 14/16th MARCH ‘26 6
COMPENSATION 6
MOTION REGARDING BAIL 6
PLEAS IN LAW 6
MOTION TO ADJOURN 8 PRODUCTIONS 8
DIGITAL PRODUCTIONS LIST 9
DEFENCE LODGED 23 FEBRUARY
The Accused adheres to the truth, pleas and arguments of the 32-page defence document, titled “DEFENCE FOR THE ACCUSED”, lodged by email to Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 23rd February 2026 and accessible as an online document - print-outs of which were provided by the defence at the hearing of 27th February 2026 - a copy for the Sheriff and a copy for the prosecution.
This new 9-page defence “DOCUMENT June’26 FOR THE ACCUSED” was produced in June 2026 and is concerned in the main with matters arising immediately after the hearing of the 27th February 2026 in Court Room 8 of Edinburgh Sheriff Court and matters arising since.
DEFENCE LAPTOP THEFT
At the last hearing, on the 27th February 2026, the Accused represented himself in court, with the assistance of a defence laptop available to refer to and to quote from the defence’s legal case documents and productions stored on this laptop and in addition, offering the option to display the defence’s digital productions to courtroom display monitors.
Just after the hearing, In the circumstances described by the defence production documents
“8.3.1 Property Theft Report.pdf” & “8.3.2 LiberationfromPolice27Feb26.pdf”
this defence laptop has been seized by officers of Police Scotland and not yet returned to the Accused, obstructing the defence case presentation at future hearings and in violation of the Accused’s property rights in law and right to a fair trial.
EMAILS TO LORD PROVOST
Councillor Robert Aldridge is the 258th and current Right Honourable Lord Provost and Lord Lieutenant of the City of Edinburgh.
In emails of 27th May and 5th June, the Accused wrote to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh with subject “Requesting the army to arrest Chief Constable Jo Farrell” as reproduced in the defence production document “8.4.1 Gmail - to Lord Provost Requesting the army to arrest Chief Constable Jo Farrell.pdf”. To quote from the Accused’s email of 5th June -
“Dear Lord Provost,
I write to update you that the police have written to me (see attached PDF) to refuse to investigate my complaint of theft by the police of my defence laptop (and mobile phone) on the perverse pretext -
"that any investigation at this stage is likely to .. unnecessarily delay criminal proceedings"
whereas in reality it is precisely the police's theft of my defence laptop which would unnecessarily delay criminal proceedings, which cannot proceed in any manner where justice is seen to be done while the defence is deprived of a laptop for defence documents and productions which are necessary for the defence to present my case in court.
Railroading criminal proceedings while obstructing the defence presentation would be a clear case of the prosecution attempting to pervert the course of justice / defeat the ends of justice / holding justice itself in contempt.
So just, non-railroaded criminal proceedings would have to be delayed, by successive adjournments until such time as the police return the defence's laptop to the defence or pay compensation for a replacement defence laptop.
Therefore the decision of the police not to investigate the police theft of my laptop and mobile phone is guaranteeing the delay of any proper, fair or just criminal proceedings.
So the pretext given by the police for refusing to investigate my complaint is invalid and the police refusal to investigate my complaint is a dereliction of police duty.
The pretext given does not remotely excuse the police refusing to return my defence laptop and mobile phone but merely perpetuates police criminality and is further validation of my reasons for writing to the Lord Provost.
According, I must repeat my request to the Lord Provost of 27th May 2026 -
I write to you asking that you exercise your powers as Lord Lieutenant of Edinburgh to ask that the army do now arrest the Chief Constable of Police Scotland Jo Farrell and hold her in army custody until such time as she has been suspended from her office and duty as chief constable pending what I hope will be a Scottish Police Authority and Scottish Government review into the criminality of police officers under Farrell's command.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Dow” etc.
X ACCOUNT “@_Peter_Dow”
As stated in the “DEFENCE FOR THE ACCUSED”, the defence reiterates that the Accused is indeed the owner of the X account “@_Peter_Dow” and he accepts responsibility for authoring both the complained-about post of the 20th May 2025 and all the posts made using that account before and after that date.
If it pleases the court, the defence is happy to agree and to sign a memorandum of agreement with the prosecution regarding the uncontroversial nature of the undeniable evidence that he is indeed the owner of the “@_Peter_Dow” account and the author of all the “@_Peter_Dow” account’s posts.
What is exceptionally controversial however is the false and malicious charges the prosecution makes in respect of the Accused’s lawful and dutiful social media posts.
MOTION TO RETURN LAPTOP
The defence moves the Court to order the return of the Accused’s defence laptop and mobile phone, the police and the prosecution having no lawful purpose nor entitlement to seize the Accused’s property - specifically, there being no investigatory nor evidential requirement to conduct an expensive and time-wasting forensic examination of the accused’s electronic devices with a view to redundantly and pointlessly confirming the uncontroversial truth that the Accused is indeed the author of the “@_Peter_Dow” posts.
Whereas the Accused has need of his defence laptop to present his defence case in court so it is imperative for justice to be seen to be done that the Accused’s defence laptop be returned to the Accused as soon as possible and some weeks before proceeding to trial so that this laptop can be updated with recent documents etc.
ARREST / HEARING 14/16 MARCH
The Accused was arrested from his home in Aberdeen on Saturday 14th March 2026 and transported in a prison van to Edinburgh that day to St Leonards Police Station in Edinburgh where he was held in a spartan police cell through Sunday 15th March 2026 and was brought to the spartan custody of Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Monday 16th March 2026 where at a brief hearing, the prosecution offered bail conditions, which the Accused, representing himself, promptly agreed to without debate, because the Accused in custody had been deprived of the facilities to present his defence against the imposition of any oppressive and offensive bail conditions, deprived of even a pen or a pencil, deprived of a good night’s sleep, deprived of his defence laptop, deprived of all reasonable requirements to defend himself to the best standard.
At the hearing of the 16th March 2026, rather than extemporaneously challenge the oppressive and offensive bail conditions offered, the Accused seized upon the most welcome prospect of an imminent release from custody and accepted those bail conditions which the defence now challenges in this document.
COMPENSATION
The Accused seeks compensation from Police Scotland for his unlawful and unjust 3 days 14th-16th March ‘26 in police and court custody at the daily rate of pay of the Chief Constable of Police Scotland - 3 days at £745.21/day = £2,235.63.
MOTION REGARDING BAIL
The defence moves the court to lift the following oppressive and offensive bail conditions - see digital production “8.6.1 BailEdinburgh16Mar26.pdf”- which violate the Accused’s human rights in law to freedom of expression and restrict his ability to carry out his political duties by posting on social media -
(f) not to use the social media platform ‘X’ previously known as Twitter
(g) not to make reference to any MP, MSP or Lord Advocate in any social media
The Accused has demonstrated due diligence in attending court while ordained to do so. Accordingly, there is no need for the Court to do other than ordain the Accused to appear at any further hearing of this case.
PLEAS IN LAW
The Accused applies to the Court to use its power under Section 30 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to remove the imposed oppressive and offensive bail conditions considering that the Accused’s circumstances have changed in that he now has an opportunity to oppose these bail conditions in writing because he has now had “adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence” [Human Rights Act, Article 6, 3 (b)] because he is not now, as he was then on 16th March 2026, appearing from spartan police and court custody and may now have an opportunity to put before the Court documented material information such as the Accused has posted using the X account “@_Peter_Dow” since December 2021, so the X site owner and managers are evidently content to allow the Accused to continue to post on X - and were the X site owner and managers at any time not content they could simply suspend or delete the “@_Peter_Dow” account but have not done so.
The material information which was not available to the Court on 16th March is the defence’s now documented plea that the Court would be violating the Accused’s legal human rights by imposing such oppressive and offensive bail conditions, illegally restricting the Accused’s legal right “to impart information and ideas without any interference by a public authority” [Human Rights Act, Article 10, 1] such as the Court.
THE LAW
The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, Section 30, Bail review, legislates -
(1) This section applies where a court has refused to admit a person to bail or, where a court has so admitted a person, the person has failed to accept the conditions imposed or that a sum required to be deposited under section 24(6) of this Act has not been so deposited.
[F1(1A) This section also applies where a person who has accepted the conditions imposed on his bail wants to have any of them removed or varied.]
(2) A court shall, on the application of any person mentioned in subsection (1) [F2 or (1A) above, have power to review (in favour of the person) its decision as to bail, or its decision as to the conditions imposed, if—
(a) the circumstances of the person have changed materially; or
(b) the person puts before the court material information which was not available
to it when its decision was made.]
The Human Rights Act (1998), Schedule 1, The Articles
ARTICLE 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
3 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
ARTICLE 10
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of
national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
MOTION TO ADJOURN
The defence moves the court to adjourn, the defence not being ready to proceed to trial until the police return the Accused’s defence laptop to facilitate a fair trial and the defence not being willing to accede to be railroaded to an unfair trial now by a prosecutor or a sheriff in contempt of the Accused’s legal right to a fair trial.
PRODUCTIONS
The digital productions list below lists additional digital productions to those already listed in the “DEFENCE FOR THE ACCUSED” document.
All the defence’s digital items may be previewed online by anyone with the link using the following Google-Drive Link to Digital Productions
and these additional items in the folder named “8. Productions added in June 2026”,
The Defence intends to make these digital productions available for display on a court-room monitor by two alternative methods
1. bringing a USB stick or pen drive to be plugged into the court-room’s computer stack.
2. bringing a defence laptop to be plugged into the court-room’s display monitor HDMI cable, subject to the police returning the Accused’s defence laptop
The first method is only really suitable for the display of audio-visual video digital productions whereas the second method is required for convenient defence hands-on laptop navigation between documents and for scrolling up and down within documents being displayed on the courtroom monitors.
The defence laptop is also required for the defence to find items in the file directory and to refer to and to quote from legal documents which are not necessarily required to be displayed on the courtroom monitor but are essential to the presentation of the defence case anyway.
DIGITAL PRODUCTIONS LIST
Numbering scheme - document.page.item
8. Productions added in June 2026
8. Document June'26 for the accused.pdf - Google-Drive - Docs
8.3.0 Defence for the accused.pdf - Google-Drive - Docs
8.3.1 Property theft report.pdf - Google-Drive
8.3.2 LiberationfromPolice27Feb26.pdf - Google-Drive
8.4.1 Gmail - to Lord Provost Requesting the army to arrest Chief Constable Jo Farrell.pdf - Google-Drive
8.6.1 BailEdinburgh16Mar26.pdf - Google-Drive
8.9.1 @_Peter_Dow Paki-SNP Islamic Terror 9Dec25.jpg - on X - Google-Drive
8.9.2 VIDEO PeterDow Paki-SNP Islamic Terror - 9Dec25.mp4 - Google Drive
8.9.3 @_Peter_Dow SAVE Khadija Ahmadzada 21 Jan 2026.jpg - on X - Google Drive
8.9.4 SIZWE-BANSI tweet 20 Jan 2026.jpg - on X - Google-Drive
8.9.5 VIDEO - SIZWE-BANSI Khadija Ahmadzada sentenced_to_be_stoned_to_death_in_Afghanistan.mp4 - on X - Google-Drive
8.9.6 @_Peter_Dow Help Afghan Women Girls 7Mar26.jpg - on X - Google-Drive
8.9.7 VIDEO SHAME on Swinney's GESTAPO helping Taliban stone Afghan girls.mp4 - Google-Drive
8.9.8 @_Peter_Dow SWINNEY Afghan girls sold 12Mar2026.jpg - on X - Google-Drive
8.9.9 @_Peter_Dow Kaukab's Pakistan's Taliban sells Afghan girls 12March26.jpg - on X - Google-Drive
8.9.10 VIDEO SkyNews Afghanistan Poor families sell underage daughters into marriage.mp4 - YouTube - Google-Drive
8.9.11 VIDEO Humza Yousaf Pakistani impunity.mp4 - YouTube - Google-Drive
