IN THE SHERIFF COURT OF GRAMPIAN, HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS
AT
ABERDEEN
SUBMISSION FOR THE ACCUSED
NO CASE TO ANSWER
in
Procurator Fiscal, ABERDEEN
against
ALASTAIR PETER DOW, B.Sc.(Hons)
SCS Ref: SCS/2025-003979
Local Ref: ABE/2025-000145
PF Ref: AB25000403-001
Police Ref: PSSECR53W1224
SCRO No: S129419/83N
Date lodged - 3rd November 2025
Lodged by the accused representing himself
1
DOCUMENT CONTENTS PAGE
- TITLE PAGE
- DOCUMENT CONTENTS
- NO CASE TO ANSWER
- THE CHARGES LIBELLED
- THE LAW
- DEMOCRATIC POLITICS
- WHAT THE ACCUSED HAS DONE
- WHAT THE ACCUSED HAS NOT DONE
- OTHER CHARGES
- THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN PEACEFUL
- PLEAS IN LAW
NO CASE TO ANSWER
This document for the defence is produced to support a submission that the accused has no case to answer as allowed by Section 160 “No case to answer” of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
THE CHARGES LIBELLED
The charges falsely allege that the Accused did some things
- CONTRARY to the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 Section 50(A)(1)(b) and (5)
- CONTRARY to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, Section 3(1)(b)
THE LAW
Section 50A(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 says
50A [ Racially-aggravated harassment.]
(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he—
(a) ..
(b) acts in a manner which is racially aggravated and which causes, or is intended to cause, a person alarm or distress.
Section 3(1)(b) of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 says
3. Racially aggravated harassment
(1) A person comments an offence if the person-
(a) ..
(b) acts in a manner which is racially aggravated and which causes, or intended to cause, another person alarm or distress
DEMOCRATIC POLITICS
The method of democratic politics is to criticise a politician for his or her policies (or for their actual misbehaviour other than pursuing their declared policies) so as to hold that politician accountable before the court of public opinion so that voters are better informed so as to choose whether or not to withdraw their support and their vote for that criticised politician.
The method of democratic politics is absolutely not to “cause politicians alarm or distress” which would not strengthen a criticism, but which, if anything would be a gift to the politician of attracting sympathy for alarm and distress and therefore would be counter-productive for holding the politician to account.
It may well be that if and when a politician loses support following criticism and is at risk of losing votes and elections then the politician or their loyal party supporters may be very displeased about that criticism - so displeased that they may engage in malicious actions to undermine the credibility of the critic, including making malicious complaints to the police.
The difference between the two malicious witnesses is that no-one is paying David Fernandez to be professionally malicious to the Accused, unlike Darren Steadwood whose job, that is akin to a Scottish Parliament Gestapo officer, encourages him to make malicious complaints to the police.
WHAT THE ACCUSED HAS DONE
The Accused has posted comments on X using his username @_Peter_Dow, comments which admittedly, are very critical of the politicians Humza Yousaf and Kaukab Stewart, but always in a manner in accordance with X site rules and the law of Scotland. It is simply not possible to “harrass” anyone on X because it is so easy to avoid reading any more posts from the same author whose posts you have taken a dislike to, by muting or blocking posts from disliked authors. Darren Steadwood is paid to search for posts he doesn’t like and David Fernandez deliberately made no effort to mute or block social media posts from @_Peter_Dow. In their own different ways, both were hunters seeking people to deem “offensive”, but neither witness provided any evidence of anyone being a victim of harassment by the Accused.
WHAT THE ACCUSED HAS NOT DONE
The Accused has not posted anything which was intended to cause alarm or distress to either Humza Yousaf and Kaukab Stewart. There was no evidence to suggest that alarm or distress was caused to anyone or that was the Accused’s intent.
What the Accused has also done is take responsibility for his own social media posts and apologise to anyone who found them offensive.
However in apologising to those who are comparatively easily offended, the Accused has never pleaded guilty to the charges libelled. Some sensitive people get easily offended in politics by perfectly lawful criticisms but if they can’t stand the heat, then they shouldn’t go into the kitchen, so to speak. In other words, if you can’t stand to read, on X, displeasing words which are critical of your favourite politicians then don’t read them. It is that simple. It is that easy.
OTHER CHARGES
The prosecutor fiscal depute has floated in court the suggestion that if the Sheriff was not minded to convict on the charges libelled, the prosecution would switch to a charge of breach of the peace.
THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN PEACEFUL
The Accused is responsible for his own actions, peacefully typing on a keyboard from his own home, but the Accused is not responsible for the disproportionate actions of the police, who, truth be told, did breach the peace by forcing entry into the Accused’s home on the morning of the 18th December 2024 and the police did commit other crimes such as criminal damage of the Accused’s flat front door when police forced entry and for the crimes of theft in taking the Accused’s digital devices for which ultimately the prosecution had no use for but whose data was critical for the uninterrupted performance of the Accused’s duties as a scientist and a political activist.
In particular, the interruption of the duties of a scientist in the service of humanity is a crime against humanity - committed with inhumane recklessness by police and prosecutors to this day.
Perhaps the policy solution to crimes against humanity would be to establish a specialist branch of the police or the military dedicated to arresting just this sort of inhumane police and court actions against scientists.
So if anyone should face a charge of breach of the peace it should be the police to face that charge but in truth, the speedy return of the Accused’s digital devices and the payment to the Accused of civil compensation, paid by the police, to replace the Accused’s front door would be more useful and the preference of the Accused.
PLEAS IN LAW
The evidence led by the prosecution being insufficient in law to justify the Accused being convicted of any charge, the Defence submits that there is no case to answer and that the Accused should be acquitted, under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, Section 160.
