🔗 Share this article

Plans to abolish the Scottish controversial third verdict have been passed by Members of the Scottish Parliament.

The step is included in sweeping legal changes that will also increase the standard for a conviction verdict in court proceedings and introduce a special court for sexual crimes.

The removal of the not proven, which is unique to Scotland’s legal system and dates back to the 17th Century, will mark a significant turning point in the Scotland’s legal history.

Proponents maintain that it reduces the chance of miscarriage of justice, while skeptics say the verdict is misleading and fails to provide certainty for complainants.

Significant Reforms Approved

These changes were included in the government’s comprehensive legal bill, which was approved by a margin of 71 to 46.

The third verdict is among three verdicts that can be returned in Scottish trials, alongside guilty and not guilty.

It has the identical outcome as being acquitted—the individual is cleared and is not guilty in the view of the law.

Over the years, there were appeals to scrap this option in the past years, typically prompted by families of complainants who felt let down by what they view as an unsatisfactory outcome.

Interpreting the Not Proven Verdict

There is no legal explanation of not proven in legislation. When a trial begins, jurors are informed that there are two acquittal verdicts—yet no distinction is made.

A senior justice official remarked that it was a “often misinterpreted” verdict that “harms” complainants and leaves a “persistent doubt” on the accused.

However, advocacy organizations have argued that its removal could lead to an increase in wrongful convictions.

An analysis published in 2019 indicated that removing the not proven verdict might persuade more jurors towards a guilty verdict in tightly contested trials.

It also pointed out inconsistent views on the significance of this outcome and how it varied from not guilty.

Recent official statistics reveal that 1% of people facing charges in court were cleared on a this option, as opposed to a larger share on a acquittal verdict.

Other Changes and Consequences

These changes also include a change in how guilty verdicts are decided.

The judicial panel have fifteen jurors, and currently a basic majority of eight jurors is needed for a verdict. Under the new higher threshold, that will be increased to ten jurors.

Raising the bar for conviction verdicts is meant to address fears of some legal representatives who worry that the removal of not proven could raise the likelihood of false guilty findings.

The changes also introduce:

• establishment of a special sexual offences court
• a victims and witnesses commissioner to oversee rights of victims
• an obligation for the release panel to consider whether a murderer has declined to reveal the site of their the body
• broadening of rules that restrict what can be raised in court about a victim’s personal background
• experimental measure giving complainants of serious crimes no-cost availability to court transcripts

Officials have not set a schedule for removing the third verdict or implementing the new jury threshold for conviction verdicts.

The reforms will involve judges and court staff to receive education.

Establishing more time to introduce a sexual offences court and a victims commissioner.

Most complaints brought to police do not lead to legal action. As a solution, the government proposed a trial program that would have allowed trials for serious sexual offences to be held by a judge alone.

However, the proposal was abandoned following objections from lawyers and court officials.

Reactions and Discussion

A charity chief commented the passage of the bill was a “momentous occasion”.

“This represents a major advance towards creating a system that prioritizes the interests of people harmed by crime,” she added.

Parliament saw general support over scrapping the third verdict, but some opposition MSPs voiced reservations about implementing such a sweeping package of measures in a single piece of legislation.

An opposition member argued that the legislation would “spend millions on cosmetic solutions that will make little difference to victims”.

An opposition representative expressed concerns about taking rape trials out of the high court and into a new tribunal.

Another representative stated that the bill was “far too large” and that several proposals received inadequate examination.

But, a proponent said that the bill would help deliver “compassion, dignity and accountability for victims”.