Written by the Accused.scot Editorial

31.01.2026

When “Useful” Replaces “True”

A Saturday Reflection on Section 275, institutional campaigning, and the accountability gap

 

When the long-serving chief executive of a national campaigning organisation steps down after nearly a quarter of a century, the announcement is framed as transition. Gratitude. Continuity. Stability.

That is how these moments are supposed to read. But timing matters in public life. Leadership changes do not occur in a vacuum. They happen inside an institutional climate, and that climate shapes how the public interprets them.

On 30 January 2026, Rape Crisis Scotland announced that its chief executive, Sandy Brindley, would step down after 24 years in post, with an interim appointment confirmed.
Rape Crisis Scotland: Chief executive steps down after 24 years

It would be irresponsible to claim a hidden cause. Resignations can be personal, planned, or simply overdue after decades of service. But it would be equally naïve to pretend the surrounding context is irrelevant.

Some reporting has framed the departure primarily through the lens of the Edinburgh centre failings rather than ordinary succession. In that telling, the resignation is not a neutral transition but a governance consequence. Whether one accepts that framing or not, the public context exists, and governance commentary cannot pretend otherwise.

Controversy, governance, and the problem of insulation

This moment follows a period in which leadership was drawn into public controversy over governance and service standards, centred on an independent review of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre commissioned in 2024 after serious concerns about adherence to national standards.
Edinburgh Rape Crisis National Service Standards Review (PDF)

Public reporting described organisational failings, an apology from Sandy Brindley, and criticism of the time taken to intervene once standards concerns were known. That criticism turns controversy into a concrete governance question: responsiveness, safeguarding culture, and leadership accountability.
The Guardian: Brindley apologises over Edinburgh centre failings

Insulation rarely looks dramatic in the moment. It looks like message discipline. It looks like critics being framed as hostile rather than treated as citizens asking legitimate questions. It looks like authority defended as status rather than tested as standard.

This is not an argument against survivor support. It is an argument for ordinary accountability when an organisation’s voice carries institutional weight.

How the resignation is being framed elsewhere

Some coverage presents the resignation explicitly as a consequence of the Edinburgh failings: a delayed response, a standards breakdown, and a leadership culture under scrutiny. That framing is narrower than this essay’s focus, but it is not irrelevant. It highlights how governance episodes become public trust tests once an organisation occupies quasi-institutional ground.

When accountability appears slow or defensive, the public question shifts from “what happened?” to “who enforces standards?” That shift matters more than any single personality.

The Supreme Court warning Scotland could not ignore

In November 2025, the UK Supreme Court dismissed the linked appeals in Daly and Keir, but delivered a warning about Scotland’s approach to evidential relevance and the application of Sections 274 and 275. The court did not reject protections. It warned that mechanical application risks unfairness if proportionality is lost.
UK Supreme Court press summary
UK Supreme Court judgment

A conviction can stand while the surrounding method is judged unsafe. A mature system treats that as an invitation to review. A defensive system treats it as a communications problem

When legal critique becomes moral offence

In a functioning justice culture, it must be possible to hold two truths simultaneously: survivors deserve dignity and support, and the accused must be able to test evidence fairly. That is not compromise. That is justice.

But once debate becomes moralised, criticism is reframed as hostility. The question “is this proportionate?” is heard as “do you believe survivors?” Those are not the same question. Collapsing them makes reform socially expensive and practically rare.

Rape Crisis Scotland’s public response to the Supreme Court ruling emphasised reassurance and continuity while addressing the wider warning.
Rape Crisis Scotland statement on the ruling

This is how accountability degrades: not through a single decision, but through a culture that treats scrutiny as harm and continuity as virtue.

The “business as usual” instinct

Institutional responses leaned toward stability after the ruling. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission noted implications without signalling urgent structural change.
SCCRC update on Section 274/275

Stability can be professionalism. It can also become a reflex that postpones accountability indefinitely.

What the accounts suggest about incentives

Financial structure clarifies institutional behaviour. A national organisation dependent on continuing funding must constantly protect legitimacy. Stability becomes survival. Scrutiny feels existential.
Companies House filing history

This is not corruption. It is an incentive environment. It is where “useful” begins to crowd out “true”.

Political pressure without guesswork

It is tempting to personalise systems. Pressure groups. Party politics. A desire to show results. Those explanations are emotionally satisfying because they give us villains.

The stronger analysis looks at incentives, not hidden motives. Scottish justice operates under sustained pressure to demonstrate confidence in sexual offence prosecution. Institutions adapt to that atmosphere. The Supreme Court warning suggests adaptation drifted into legally dangerous territory.

That is not conspiracy. It is governance.

The Saturday question Scotland has to face

A society can support survivors and still insist on a process capable of distinguishing truth from error. It must. That is the point of justice.

If public institutions can be pressured by narrative more readily than they can be corrected by evidence, what mechanism remains to protect the innocent?

A system that cannot tolerate scrutiny is not strong. It is merely unchallenged. And unchallenged systems eventually make mistakes no one is allowed to name.

---

All key factual reference points in this piece are linked to primary or official sources so readers can check them directly.