Status: Public discussion proposal, based on Simon Peers’ controlled development paper Scottish Post-Acquittal Rights & Standards, Version 1.4 (26 September 2026), and the Justice Information Audit addendum (17 October 2026). This is not an existing Scottish statutory standard or a statement that the proposed rights are already law.

A Not Guilty verdict resolves the charge before the court. Yet information, administrative restrictions or reputational effects may remain in different systems. Some retention or processing may be lawful and justified. Other consequences may require explanation, correction, review or a practical remedy. At present, the individual may have to contact each organisation separately.

The problem: an orphaned outcome

The court records the result. Other bodies may hold related records or have made separate decisions. When each institution considers its own file complete, responsibility for the overall consequences can become unclear. We call that an orphaned outcome.

Our central proposal: Establish a coherent, proportionate post-acquittal process in which relevant organisations identify remaining consequences, explain their continuing basis, provide accessible ways to challenge errors and verify that agreed remedies have actually occurred.

The proposed minimum standard

1. Acknowledge the outcome

Record the acquittal accurately and identify which organisations may need to know, subject to lawful purposes and disclosure limits.

2. Identify continuing information

Explain what relevant records and data remain, who controls them and why they may continue to be held or used, subject to legitimate exemptions.

3. Provide a route to access and correction

Give the person an intelligible way to request records, challenge inaccuracies and contest continuing use or disclosure where the law allows.

4. Review continuing restrictions

Ask whether relevant administrative restrictions and decisions remain justified in light of the actual outcome and current circumstances.

5. Escalate credible procedural concerns

Provide a proportionate route for independent procedural review of sufficiently evidenced error, maladministration or recurring systemic weakness. An acquittal alone would not trigger a finding of misconduct.

6. Assess consequences across organisations

Where appropriate and lawful, reconcile the effects of separate decisions instead of leaving the person to navigate unconnected processes.

7. Consider restoration or redress

Where a consequence is unjustified, consider timely practical correction, explanation, apology or an available redress route. No automatic entitlement to compensation is implied.

8. Verify organisational learning

For material failures, record a named owner, corrective action, deadline, implementation evidence and independent effectiveness check.

The Justice Information Audit

The Justice Information Audit is the proposed information-assurance component. It asks not only whether a record is held, but what happened to that information after it travelled.

• Origin: Where did the information come from, and how was its accuracy assessed?
• Transformation: Was it summarised, classified, amended or generated with AI assistance, and who verified the result?
• Recipients: Which bodies or third parties received relevant information, under what authority?
• Reconciliation: Has the court outcome been correctly interpreted wherever it is relevant?
• Correction: If information was inaccurate or no longer justified for a particular use, who decided the lawful remedy and who was notified?
• Assurance: What evidence confirms that the action was implemented and effective?

A correction at the source may not resolve the problem if outdated information remains with other lawful recipients. Accountability must follow information wherever it travels. That principle must operate within data-protection law, disclosure restrictions and the legitimate requirements of investigations and record retention.

From concern to verified improvement

What this proposal does—and does not—say

It does not presume wrongdoing whenever a person is acquitted. It does not require indiscriminate deletion of lawful records, overturn criminal decisions or transfer prosecutorial discretion to an outside body. It proposes clearer information rights, cross-organisational responsibility and independently checked corrective action, with the precise legal mechanism to be developed and tested.

Existing rights to information, correction, complaint or redress depend on the applicable legal framework and facts. The proposed Standard would need consultation, legal analysis, proportionality safeguards, costs and implementation testing before adoption.

How success should be measured

Publication of guidance is not the same as improvement. A credible pilot should distinguish recommendation accepted, action implemented and effectiveness independently verified; record responsibility and timescales; and assess whether people still encounter unresolved consequences.

Join the public discussion

This proposal is an invitation to scrutiny and constructive improvement. If you can identify an existing safeguard we have overlooked, a practical obstacle or a stronger mechanism, please tell us. Send Simon a message. Please avoid sending confidential or time-sensitive legal material through the general contact form.

Development sources: Simon Peers, Scottish Post-Acquittal Rights & Standards, controlled copy Version 1.4, 26 September 2026; Justice Information Audit Development Register — Addendum, 17 October 2026 (review draft). The material here is a public-facing synthesis, not a verbatim republication of either document.

“Someone must own what happens next.”