Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. For members
  3. Journal Archive
  4. Issues
  5. May 2021
  6. Editorial

Editorial

After featuring in the election campaign the future of the not proven verdict is in doubt – but are there alternatives to simple abolition?
10th May 2021 | Peter Nicholson

We now know who will form the next Scottish Government in the wake of the election, though we are no clearer about our constitutional future.

Amid the campaign hubbub about referendums and recovery, however, some other issues did surface. One that became something of a bandwagon was the future of the not proven verdict.

This curious feature of our criminal trials (which has been shown, contrary to supposition, not to have been the original Scottish acquittal verdict) sharply divides opinion. It also generates much misunderstanding. Opponents attack it as used by juries as a get-out from facing up to whether to convict, and blame it in particular for the low conviction rate in rape and analogous offences – though it has featured notoriously in other cases also. Defence lawyers claim, very plausibly, that its use indicates a doubt such that the only proper alternative is a not guilty verdict, even if a jury might hesitate to apply that term to the accused – yet the 2019 jury research report concluded that removing not proven might result in more guilty verdicts.

It has to be said, however, that the status quo is difficult to defend. Juries are told they have the choice of three verdicts, but are not allowed to have the two acquittal verdicts explained, except that they both have the same effect. It is not surprising that the 2019 research also found a level of confusion, for example that some jurors believe that not proven leaves open the possibility of a retrial.

Hence some senior voices within the profession also regard the present position as indefensible, such as the recently retired Lord Uist, who has written that the existence of two acquittal verdicts is “indefensible in logic and in common sense”. And hence the continuing campaign to abolish not proven, reflected in varying party election promises to do so or at least to review its future.

 

So change may be coming. But are there alternatives? A minority view, perhaps the legal purist position, is to have the two verdicts, proven or not proven. That, I suspect, would not resonate so readily with juries, who should at least have little difficulty with the concept of guilty/ not guilty. But I am initially attracted to one suggestion I saw recently, that we adopt the two verdicts of “proven guilty” and “not proven guilty”. That might help juries to focus on the correct legal approach, while providing two clear alternatives.

Some might question whether it would sit with the presumption of innocence. That, however, is also a criticism of the present position. The alternative of course is guilty and not guilty, which brings us back to where we came in. We do not live in a perfect world.

Share this article
Add To Favorites
https://lawware.co.uk/

Regulars

  • People on the move: May 2021
  • Book reviews: May 2021
  • Reading for pleasure: May 2021

Perspectives

  • Editorial: May 2021
  • Opinion: Julia McPartlin
  • President's column: May 2021
  • Profile: Fiona Menzies
  • Viewpoints: May 2021

Features

  • Recovery phase?
  • Legal education: a reply
  • COVID challenges and tomorrow's lawyers
  • Take a break, make it nature
  • COVID, lost income and child maintenance

Briefings

  • Civil court: All in a month's work
  • Family: Contingent liabilities in company valuations
  • Employment: Updates from the bench
  • Human rights: When a child needs protection for life
  • Pensions: New initiatives to combat fraud
  • Data beyond Brexit
  • The Potter’s tale

In practice

  • SOLAS: update on a virtual year
  • Lawscot Foundation – five years on
  • Access issues in conveyancing
  • Pushing the tech frontier
  • The Word of Gold: What’s the core?
  • The Eternal Optimist: That "glow and tingle" feeling
  • Ask Ash: Grounded – no work travel!
  • Profile: Krista Johnston

Online exclusive

  • Foot off the pedal
  • Trans rights in the workplace: a matter of respect
  • COVID challenges and tomorrow's lawyers (full version)
  • Caravan sites: is COVID rates relief right?

In this issue

  • Transforming the client experience online – then and now
  • High tech, high powered
  • Law Society of Scotland member benefits 2021
  • BYOD and remote working: a new threat
  • New normal: how do you keep your firm's culture alive?
  • “We’re solicitors, not salespeople...”

Recent Issues

Dec 2023
Nov 2023
Oct 2023
Sept 2023
Search the archive

Additional

Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited