My name is Simon Peers. This is the experience that led me to establish After Not Guilty. It is a personal account, drawn in part from Chapter 1 of my developing book Rewiring the Public Sector. The purpose is to explain what happened to me, why it matters and what I hope can be improved—not to ask readers to determine the merits of the prosecution for themselves.

An ordinary Saturday morning

On 20 September 2025, I took a photograph in the cardio area of a gym where I had been a member for years. The digital file was created at 08:25:34. The sequence of unlocking my phone, taking the photograph and putting the phone away lasted approximately eleven seconds.

The image showed four treadmills, with two people exercising on the middle machines, viewed from behind. As described in the defence forensic examination, the composition was not arranged to focus on either runner. That expert assessment formed part of my defence evidence; it should not be mistaken for an independent finding by this website.

What began as a short event in a familiar setting became an allegation, a police investigation, criminal proceedings and months of uncertainty.

When an event becomes a record

I came to realise that once an allegation enters public systems, it takes on a life of its own. An event becomes witness statements, police records, decisions, correspondence, court documents and sometimes information held by organisations beyond the justice system.

Each organisation has a particular responsibility. Yet information can travel across those boundaries, acquiring labels and interpretations along the way. For the person involved, those separate records can become one continuous experience.

The verdict: Not Guilty

On 24 April 2026, I was found Not Guilty in a Scottish criminal court. The verdict is the decisive judicial outcome of my case.

I have subsequently raised concerns about aspects of the processes surrounding the proceedings and their aftermath. Those concerns are not themselves findings of institutional wrongdoing. An acquittal does not prove misconduct by police, prosecutors or other bodies; equally, it does not answer every question about the accuracy of records or the handling of continuing consequences.

What happened after the verdict?

The charge was resolved. But I still had questions. What information remained? How was the outcome described elsewhere? What happened to restrictions or decisions made while proceedings were underway? Who would explain inconsistencies, and who would check that any agreed correction had actually been made?

I found that a court outcome and a wider administrative outcome are not necessarily the same thing. An institution may properly complete its own process without any one organisation taking responsibility for the combined consequences.

The orphaned outcome

I began using the term orphaned outcome for a result produced by a system whose downstream consequences have no clear overall owner.

This idea is not confined to criminal justice. A complaint can be answered while the problem continues. An inquiry can publish recommendations without anyone independently verifying their implementation. A record can be corrected in one place while an outdated version survives elsewhere.

The paperwork may be complete. The failure may still be present.

Why I started thinking like an engineer

I have spent nearly four decades working in electronics, power electronics, technical sales, business development and quality-conscious environments. The systems problem looked familiar.

A circuit does not work merely because every individual component passes its own test. Connections, signal integrity, feedback and fault detection all matter. Two components can function perfectly in isolation while their interface fails.

Public administration can face the same challenge. Police, prosecutors, courts, regulators, local authorities and oversight bodies have separate powers and duties. Citizens encounter the whole chain.

The engineering question is not only whether each component followed its procedure. It is whether the complete system produced an appropriate outcome—and whether someone noticed when it did not.

From one case to a public-interest project

I do not want this website to become a forum for personal accusation. My purpose is to examine the wider design problem, identify evidence-based improvements and contribute constructively to public debate.

That work has led to proposals for a Scottish Post-Acquittal Standard and Justice Information Audit, as well as formal submissions on public-sector accountability. The proposals are not descriptions of rights or duties already in force.

The goal is straightforward: clear explanations, accurate records, proportionate review, identifiable ownership and evidence that corrective action has worked.

A note on evidence and publication

This account is adapted from Rewiring the Public Sector, Chapter 1, “Eleven Seconds”, Controlled Rev. 3 (9 October 2026). The manuscript source notes identify a defence forensic report and recovered thumbnail. Detailed chronology and legal references remain subject to reconciliation with the controlled evidence archive. No third-party gym image is reproduced here.

This website distinguishes my first-person experience from independently established findings, and does not identify private individuals involved in the incident. Substantive corrections will be incorporated if reliable evidence warrants them.

To discuss the wider issues, send me a message. Please do not send confidential or time-sensitive legal information through the general contact form.