Have your say on the ‘Scottish verdict’ in SLN’s survey

Scottish Legal News is now asking readers whether they think it is time for “not proven” to be consigned to the history books in a survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-Pgx6xsqJDu5r9b3RUQFsMIE5dK_L5FJkR_RCxCbQYw/prefill

While a clear majority of the committee supported the intention to abolish “not proven” verdicts, it was unable to support plans to increase from eight to 10 the majority required for jury trial convictions.

The committee said the bill raised “serious questions” about whether the verdict serves any useful purpose, with convenor Christine Grahame adding that it was on “borrowed time”.

Legal historian Professor John Cairns from Edinburgh University Law School told Scottish Legal News: “Scottish juries in the Restoration period, 1660-90, tended to give verdicts of ‘proven’ or ‘not proven’, referring to individual matters of fact (or articles) set out in the indictment.

“On the basis of these ‘special verdicts’ the judges would return a verdict of guilty or not guilty on the basis of the facts found proven or not proven by the jury.

“In the 1720s, however, a jury was encouraged by an advocate to give a general verdict of “not guilty”, which they could always have done; thereafter, as well as guilty and not guilty, special verdicts continued to be used, but by 1830, special verdicts had fallen away, but ‘not proven’ remained now as a ‘general verdict’ with reference to the indictment as a whole.”

If you would like to add a comment in addition to the survey please send this to newsdesk@scottishnews.com.