Charges dismissed against pro-life grandma for silent pro-life witness

A Scottish court has dismissed charges against a 75-year-old pro-life grandmother, who was arrested for silently protesting outside an abortion facility, indicating a major triumph for free speech and peaceful pro-life witness. 

Key Takeaways:

• Rose Docherty was arrested twice in 2025 for silently holding a sign in an abortion facility's buffer zone.

• The charges against her were dropped in both cases, though prosecutors could refile the charges if evidence emerges that she influenced an abortion-minded woman to choose life.

• The development is being applauded as a win for free speech.

The Details:

In an article published on April 28, legal advocacy group ADF International, who coordinated Docherty’s legal defence, indicated that a Glasgow judge has thrown out the charges against pro-life campaigner Rose Docherty. She had been arrested twice in 2025 for silently holding a sign within an abortion facility buffer zone.

At Glasgow Sheriff Court on the morning of April 29, Sheriff Stuart Reid rebuffed two allegations that 75-year-old Christian grandmother had sought to persuade individuals to turn away from abortion within a designated buffer zone. Legal advocate Jamie McGowan, instructed by the law firm Lindsays, represented Docherty, the latter being the first person to face prosecution according to Scotland’s 2024 buffer zone law. 

The court decree came after McGowan contended that the charges breached Docherty’s rights to free expression under Article 10  of Scotland's 2024 Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act. Docherty’s legal team argued that the charge lacked clarity, and did not fulfil the legal standard of being “prescribed by law,” as it did not single out any individual within the buffer zone who was present to access, offer, or facilitate abortion services — a key condition as per the legislation.

At a hearing on April 20, prosecutors conceded that the presence of such an abortion-minded individual was an indispensable element to determine if Docherty did indeed commit an offence under Scottish law. They also admitted that probes were still underway to evaluate if  Docherty’s actions swayed anyone within the buffer zone.

Zoom In:

When Sheriff Reid asked if there was any evidence to back prosecutors’ claims that Docherty had influenced someone within the zone, the Procurator Fiscal answered that there was none at present, though such proof  might surface after more investigations. 

Eventually, Sheriff Reid ruled that the Procurator Fiscal had “failed to disclose an offence known to the law of Scotland,” and categorized Docherty’s case pro loco et tempore, implying that prosecutors could reintroduce the matter should more proofs emerge, and if if authorities determine that continuing the prosecution would benefit the public.  

In response to the decree, Docherty said:

"This verdict is a major victory for free speech in Scotland and the UK. It shows that peacefully offering consensual conversation on a public street, which is all I have ever done, can never be a crime.

Even though the verdict was a victory, the process in this case became a form of punishment for me. I was arrested last September and have faced seven months of criminal proceedings, merely for exercising my free speech rights. This should never happen in a free society.

My case shows how ‘buffer zones’ are used by authorities to impose censorship. ‘Buffer zone’ legislation must be repealed in Scotland and across the UK to ensure it is not misused to target peaceful and lawful expression again in the future, as has now happened to me twice. The resources used by the authorities to target me, a 75-year-old grandmother, for offering to speak with people, have been totally wasted.

Authorities should focus on tackling real crime in Glasgow, not censoring a Catholic grandmother."

The Bottom Line:

Docherty’s case has reinvigorated talk among critics of buffer zones about how ambiguous or excessively wide definitions of banned behavior in those zones could outlaw harmless activities like silent prayer and consensual conversations. 

Furthermore, this decree may have set a precedent regarding how Scotland would implement its buffer zone laws in the future. While the court did rule in Docherty’s favor, the wider debate about the nature of buffer zone laws has yet to reach a conclusion.