The not proven verdict

[He's here!]

Set to be scrapped:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-62811085

Thoughts? A quirk that serves little purpose or a valuable protection?

[Berwickhibby]

Set to be scrapped:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-62811085

Thoughts? A quirk that serves little purpose or a valuable protection?

I would have been happy for it to remain if the double jeopardy rules did not apply, ie if found not proven and fresh evidence is discovered that a new trial could be set. But in reality it’s the same as a not guilty.

[Just Alf]

I would have been happy for it to remain if the double jeopardy rules did not apply, ie if found not proven and fresh evidence is discovered that a new trial could be set. But in reality it’s the same as a not guilty.I've always thought having it was a good thing, you've highlighted its biggest failing. :agree:

[JeMeSouviens]

I think we should do away with guilty/not-guilty and go for proven/not-proven. Which is, after all, what the actual result really means.

[Paul1642]

I think we should do away with guilty/not-guilty and go for proven/not-proven. Which is, after all, what the actual result really means.

I get your point however not everyone not in the box as an accused did commit the crime that they are on trial for. At the moment not proven defiantly makes people think that the accused probably did commit the crime but that there was just insufficient evidence to convict, whereas not guilty implies that they most likely did not commit the crime in the first place.

I feel like proven / not proven would cast doubt on peoples perception of a verdict no matter how conclusive the evidence that led to that outcome.

I also feel like not proven currently gives jury’s a get out clause when they genuinely just can’t decide. It has the downside of guilty people occasionally getting away with crimes however also protects the genuinely innocent from wrongful convictions when circumstances suggest that they might have committed the offence.

It comes down to the tough question about whether or not it’s worth having a few more guilty people getting away with crime to avoid a few more innocent people being wrongfully convinced IMO.

[Smartie]

I'd always thought that the not proven verdict was controversial, unpopular and a bit of a daft quirk of the Scottish legal system.

Then I remember watching "The Staircase" (the original documentary series on Netflix, not the recent dramatisation on Sky) and the lawyer argues the case that Scots law is great in having this potential outcome for such cases.

It makes a bit of a mockery of "innocent until proven guilty" by having a "we know ye did it but we cannae prove it" cop out, but it was interesting to hear that there are legal opinions that it may actually have it's place in certain circumstances.

[JeMeSouviens]

I get your point however not everyone not in the box as an accused did commit the crime that they are on trial for. At the moment not proven defiantly makes people think that the accused probably did commit the crime but that there was just insufficient evidence to convict, whereas not guilty implies that they most likely did not commit the crime in the first place.

I feel like proven / not proven would cast doubt on peoples perception of a verdict no matter how conclusive the evidence that led to that outcome.

I also feel like not proven currently gives jury’s a get out clause when they genuinely just can’t decide. It has the downside of guilty people occasionally getting away with crimes however also protects the genuinely innocent from wrongful convictions when circumstances suggest that they might have committed the offence.

It comes down to the tough question about whether or not it’s worth having a few more guilty people getting away with crime to avoid a few more innocent people being wrongfully convinced IMO.

Agree with the bold.

What I'm saying is that the logic to follow is:

- accused is presumed innocent
- it's up to the crown to prove otherwise or else that presumption holds
- verdict should therefore be proven or not proven

The jury shouldn't be tempted to try and infer guilt or otherwise from hunches or how they feel about the accused, they should be concentrating on asking themselves, "have the crown proved the case?"

Anyway, it is a daft quirk of the legal system that's just stuck around out of tradition it seems and not even in the way it was orginally intended:

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/blog-no-not-proven-did-not-come-first

I don't really mind which of the 2 acquittals is done away with but there should definitely only be 1 imo.

[MartinfaePorty]

Heard an interesting interview with a defence QC on Radio Scotland this morning. He was against its removal, but accepted it was going to happen. He did say that he wanted to see a simple majority verdict (in some cases 8v7) should be changed to be at least 12 v 3. I think he may have been talking about in murder cases, but missed that detail.

He was then asked about the low incident of rape convictions and I was shocked when he said this was a fallacy and that our rates were comparable to England. But I then realised he was answering in the context of the Not Proven verdict being responsible for this, rather than the rate itself.

Sent from my SM-S901B using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

I think we should do away with guilty/not-guilty and go for proven/not-proven. Which is, after all, what the actual result really means.

That would be horrible for innocent people.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think we should do away with guilty/not-guilty and go for proven/not-proven. Which is, after all, what the actual result really means.

If someone is innocent until proven guilty then the prosecution have to prove they're guilty and if they can't prove it then they're not guilty. Saying that someone accused of something is free to go because the prosecution can't prove their guilt instead of them being not guilty leaves a question mark above the heads of everyone ever accused of anything. That can't be right.

[lapsedhibee]

If someone is innocent until proven guilty then the prosecution have to prove they're guilty and if they can't prove it then they're not guilty. Saying that someone accused of something is free to go because the prosecution can't prove their guilt instead of them being not guilty leaves a question mark above the heads of everyone ever accused of anything. That can't be right.

Shirley the question mark's there anyway by using the phrase 'not guilty' rather than 'innocent'? I mean that 'not guilty' already has a whiff of 'not proved guilty'.

[Hibrandenburg]

Shirley the question mark's there anyway by using the phrase 'not guilty' rather than 'innocent'? I mean that 'not guilty' already has a whiff of 'not proved guilty'.

To my ears not guilty sounds pretty clear, it means you are not guilty of that what you were accused of doing. Being not guilty of something you have been accused of is completely different to "not proven guilty", which has a question mark above it.

[He's here!]

To my ears not guilty sounds pretty clear, it means you are not guilty of that what you were accused of doing. Being not guilty of something you have been accused of is completely different to "not proven guilty", which has a question mark above it.

Yeh, I agree.

Most recent time I can recall 'not proven' being used in a high profile case was in relation to one of the charges against Salmond.