🔗 Share this article

Plans to remove the Scottish unique acquittal option have been backed by Members of the Scottish Parliament.

The decision is included in wide-ranging legal changes that will also raise the standard for a conviction verdict in criminal cases and introduce a special sexual offences court.

Abolition of the acquittal option, which is found only to Scottish justice and originates to the 1600s, will mark a major milestone in the nation’s judicial evolution.

Supporters argue that it reduces the possibility of miscarriage of justice, while skeptics say the verdict is unclear and does not to provide certainty for complainants.

Major Measures Passed

The measures were featured in the government’s comprehensive legal bill, which passed by a margin of 71 to 46.

Not proven is among three verdicts that can be delivered in criminal proceedings, together with conviction and acquittal.

It carries the same effect as being cleared—the accused is released and is free from guilt in the view of the law.

Repeated demands to scrap the third verdict in the past years, often prompted by families of those affected who felt aggrieved by what they regard as an unsatisfactory outcome.

Defining the Controversial Verdict

No fixed meaning of the third verdict in law. When a trial begins, jury members are told that there are two acquittal verdicts—however no distinction is made.

The Justice Secretary stated that it was a “often misinterpreted” verdict that “traumatises” those involved and leaves a “lasting cloud” on the defendant.

However, advocacy organizations have warned that its abolition might result in an rise in unjust outcomes.

An analysis published in recent years found that removing the third verdict might incline more jurors towards a conviction verdict in tightly contested trials.

It also emphasized differing views on the significance of the verdict and how it varied from full acquittal.

Recent government data show that 1% of people charged with charges in court were cleared on a not proven, as opposed to a larger share on a acquittal verdict.

Additional Measures and Impact

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

Scottish juries have fifteen jurors, and now a simple majority of eight is required for a verdict. Under the new two-thirds rule, that will be increased to ten jurors.

Elevating the bar for guilty verdicts is meant to allay concerns of some legal representatives who fear that the removal of not proven could raise the chance of miscarriages of justice.

The reforms also enable:

• formation of a dedicated court for sexual crimes
• a victims and witnesses commissioner to ensure rights of victims
• an obligation for the parole board to take into account whether a murderer has declined to reveal the location of their victim’s remains
• broadening of safeguards that control what can be said in court about a witness’s past behavior
• pilot program giving those affected of sexual assault complimentary copies to court records

Officials have not announced a schedule for abolishing the not proven verdict or implementing the higher standard for guilty verdicts.

These measures will involve judges and court staff to undergo education.

The process may require significantly longer to create a specialist court and a independent office.

Many complaints brought to law enforcement do not end with prosecutions. In response, ministers proposed a experiment that would have enabled trials for rape and assault to be held without a jury.

Yet, this measure was scrapped following criticism from advocates and court officials.

Reactions and Debate

An advocacy group stated the approval of the bill was a “momentous occasion”.

“It marks a major advance towards creating a system that prioritizes the needs of people affected by crime,” the statement read.

Parliament saw widespread backing over abolishing the not proven verdict, but some critics expressed concerns about implementing such a wide range of changes in a comprehensive act.

An opposition member claimed that the legislation would “waste millions on ineffective measures that will make minimal impact to victims”.

A concerned MSP expressed worries about taking rape trials out of the high court and into a specialist court.

A fellow MSP commented that the bill was “overly broad” and that several amendments received inadequate examination.

Yet, a supporting MSP stated that the bill would help deliver “compassion, dignity and justice for victims”.