Gordon Jackson QC

Gordon Jackson QC told The Times that the single-vote majority of eight-to-seven could lead to miscarriages of justice.

He said: “Having the eight/seven majority is ridiculous.

“A person goes to prison for 30 years of the basis of eight out of 15? That is just not right. There is a growing feeling that the simple majority is not right.”

Mr Jackson expressed concern about the threshold of a majority verdict rather than the total number of jurors. He said the majority should either be 12-to-three or eight-to-four in the case of a 12-person jury.

The ‘not proven’ verdict has the same effect as ‘not guilty’.

Some lawyers have argued that it is logical to abolish ‘not guilty’ on the basis that whether a case has been proven or not by the Crown is the question for the jury.

Others maintain that a jury’s role is to determine whether each charge has been proven or not and that the ultimate purpose of this is to provide a verdict on whether the accused is guilty or not, which proceeds from the presumption of innocence.

Mr Jackson said: “I don’t think the conviction rate would go up if you didn’t have the not proven verdict.

“The reason that people want to keep it, is in my view, a myth. I do not see the logic that believes, ‘If you take away not proven the jury will say guilty’. I think that is to treat juries as not really doing the job properly.”