Acquittal Case Watch | Scottish criminal justice | Evidence review JIA-011 | 5 November 2026
A Scottish appeal judgment has exposed multiple weaknesses in how information moved between Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). The significance is not simply that disclosure was missed. The Crown’s own investigation identified eleven distinct routes by which material failed to reach—or be properly assessed for—the defence.
What happened?
In YZ v HM Advocate [2026] HCJAC 12, decided on 5 February 2026, the High Court of Justiciary set aside six convictions for serious sexual and violent offences. The Crown accepted substantial failures to disclose information. The court found that two particular items satisfied the test for a miscarriage of justice: there was a real possibility that disclosure could have produced a different jury verdict.
The judgment does not determine that the allegations were false. The court authorised a possible new prosecution, despite the Crown having indicated it did not intend to seek one. Under section 119 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, if no new proceedings were commenced within the statutory two-month period, the order setting aside the verdicts would have the effect of an acquittal. We have not independently confirmed the subsequent procedural record.
What did the Crown acknowledge?
At paragraph 129 the court reproduced the Solicitor General’s account of the Crown’s investigation. The eleven reported mechanisms were:
- Relevant material was not recorded in police case-management systems, making it invisible in the linked COPFS system.
- Police did not provide COPFS with details of all relevant information.
- Important information was discussed informally by email rather than through formal reporting and disclosure routes.
- Required disclosure schedules were not received and COPFS did not challenge their absence.
- COPFS did not request some material visible in its linked systems.
- Documents mentioned in other reports were not requested when missing.
- Separate police reports were not sufficiently linked to the main COPFS case, bypassing some routine checks.
- Some witness material was incorrectly assessed as non-disclosable and the reasons were inadequately recorded.
- An intended request for Crown Counsel’s instruction was never made.
- Material identified as disclosable was not sent; routine checks did not detect the omission.
- Staff handover procedures were not properly followed.
Why does it matter?
These are identifiable breakdowns in recording, transfer, classification, follow-up, exception monitoring and ownership. A database may contain information without ensuring that the right people receive it or that the absence of an expected document triggers an alarm. The case gives the Justice Information Audit specific system controls to test rather than relying on general claims of poor administration.
What remains unanswered?
The Solicitor General reported that an urgent review of disclosure practices had been ordered, including how COPFS works with Police Scotland. The judgment records that commitment; it does not independently establish what changes were completed, whether they were tested, or whether subsequent cases were audited for similar weaknesses.
Useful questions include: was there a published action plan; who owned each corrective action; what deadlines applied; did missing schedules start generating alerts; were linked-case checks redesigned; and what independent evidence establishes that the eleven mechanisms can now be detected or prevented?
Lessons for the Scottish Post-Acquittal Standard
Although this judgment concerns convictions set aside on appeal rather than a conventional not-guilty verdict after trial, it supports our wider proposals for documented responsibility, complete audit trails, reconciliation across agencies, outcome accuracy and independent verification of remedial action. Any such standard must also preserve reporting restrictions and the privacy rights of complainers and witnesses.
Acknowledgement is not corrective action. Corrective action is not established until its effectiveness is verified.
Primary source and editorial note
High Court of Justiciary judgment, YZ v HM Advocate [2026] HCJAC 12 (PDF). See especially paragraphs 126–132 and the eleven failure mechanisms reproduced at paragraph 129.
This article distinguishes judicial findings, the Crown’s acknowledgements, and questions not yet independently resolved. It is independent public-interest analysis, not a finding of misconduct beyond the judgment or a request to identify protected individuals. Corrections and relevant source material may be submitted through the site’s contact page.
