COPFS CORRESPONDENCE · MAY–NOVEMBER 2026
What was asked. What was answered. What remains to be examined.
These are extracts from COPFS’s replies to my requests for explanation, review and wider institutional learning following my acquittal. I was found Not Guilty on 24 April 2026. The quotations below express COPFS’s position; the context notes are my account of the correspondence.
An acquittal does not itself establish that a prosecution was improper. The question explored here is how an institution explains its decisions, receives evidence about wider systems issues and verifies corrective action.
1. A wider review
I regret that a broad review of this nature is, in my view, unnecessary.
25 May 2026 · F Matheson, Assistant Procurator Fiscal · Stage 1 reply
Context: My request sought consideration of wider lessons, including escalation dynamics and institutional reinforcement of assumptions.
2. The public-interest decision
Standing the nature of the charge you faced, proceedings were in the public interest.
25 May 2026 · F Matheson · Stage 1 reply
Context: The reply relied also on the court having repelled the no-case-to-answer submission. That ruling and the eventual Not Guilty verdict are distinct parts of the proceedings.
3. Detailed analysis
I do not intend to engage in the “point-by-point” analysis of the evidence that you have asked for.
2 September 2026 · John Logue, Crown Agent and Chief Executive · p.1
Context: The Crown Agent stated that he had reviewed the case and was satisfied that sufficient credible and reliable evidence supported prosecution.
4. The description of the allegation
The nature of the allegation against you, which involved photographing a sixteen-year-old schoolgirl in a gym without her knowledge or consent, is such that there was a strong public interest in bringing, and maintaining, proceedings.
2 September 2026 · John Logue · p.2
Context: This is the Crown Agent’s description of the allegation and his explanation of the public-interest decision. It is not a finding of guilt.
5. The limits of external scrutiny
It is correct that the SPSO cannot intervene in prosecutorial decisions.
2 September 2026 · John Logue · p.2
Context: The letter explained that the SPSO referral concerned complaint handling, and stated that this signposting was appropriate.
6. The governance conclusion
The prosecution against you was not the result of any failure of governance.
2 September 2026 · John Logue · p.2
Context: This was his conclusion in response to the governance concerns I raised.
7. “Manifestly correct”
I am personally satisfied that the decision to prosecute you for taking photographs of a 16-year-old girl when she was exercising and unaware of your conduct was manifestly correct.
2 September 2026 · John Logue · p.2
Context: The phrase “manifestly correct” expresses the Crown Agent’s assessment of the decision to prosecute. My case ended in acquittal; the letter did not alter that outcome.
8. The end of the process
You have reached the end of the COPFS complaints handling process. I cannot assist you further.
2 September 2026 · John Logue · p.2
Context: The letter closed the internal complaints route.
9. Review of the review
We will not carry out a review of the Crown Agent’s consideration of your case.
9 October 2026 · Mairi Boyle, Legal Assistant to the Crown Agent
Context: This answered my request for a review of the Crown Agent’s handling of my complaint.
10. “We do not engage”
We do not engage with former accused persons about the governance of COPFS and prosecutorial decision-making.
9 October 2026 · Mairi Boyle
Context: The preceding passage referred to my comparative policy and systems case study and proposed governance changes.
11. The guidance correction
We have noted there is a typographical error at one line of the guide for parents and carers of child witnesses on the COPFS website. This has been corrected.
3 November 2026 · Mairi Boyle
Context: My email of 1 November identified wording that reversed the meaning of a not-guilty verdict. This quotation records COPFS’s description of the error and its assertion of correction; it is not independent verification of the live webpage.
12. The position repeated
As we have said in response to earlier correspondence from you about the case brought against you, we do not engage with former accused persons about COPFS governance and prosecutorial decision-making.
3 November 2026 · Mairi Boyle
Context: This followed a reference to my request for work on the consequences of prosecution for individuals subsequently acquitted.
13. Without acknowledgement
As previously advised, further correspondence from you on this subject will be filed without acknowledgement.
3 November 2026 · Mairi Boyle
Context: The same sentence appeared in the 9 October reply. In November it formed part of the response to my correspondence about public guidance and wider post-acquittal issues.
Sources and scope
Source records: COPFS email of 25 May 2026, signed F Matheson; John Logue’s two-page letter dated 2 September 2026, reference ED25016984; Mairi Boyle’s emails of 9 October and 3 November 2026. Extracts have been checked against the correspondence. Line breaks have been normalised. Original correspondence is retained in my evidence archive; private mailbox links and personal contact details are not published here.
The question for reform
In my view, these replies raise a question beyond the merits of one prosecution: how can a person who has experienced the system contribute evidence to institutional learning when engagement on governance is declined? A completed complaint process and a verified improvement are different outcomes.
Read my case · Rewiring in Practice · The proposed Scottish Post-Acquittal Standard
