Judges support abolition of ‘not proven’

In their response to the consultation on the future of the third verdict, the judges said it was inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and the purpose of the trial process.

Because there is no functional difference in law between ‘not proven’ and ‘not guilty’, it has no purpose, they said.

The document adds: “The view of the current judges, by a majority of two to one, is that the rule requiring corroboration ought to be abolished.

“A principal concern is the extent to which the requirement for corroboration acts as a barrier to accessing justice, particularly in the cases of many women and child victims of both sexual abuse and domestic abuse.

“The large increase in the number of sexual offences cases reported has served to bring this effect into sharp focus.

“A prosecution cannot be brought in the absence of corroboration and, if a prosecution is brought on the basis of a second source of evidence which falls away, it cannot reach the stage of consideration by a jury.”

Stuart Munro, convener of the Law Society of Scotland’s Criminal Law Committee, said of the consultation responses: “It is striking that such a fundamental change as abolishing Scotland’s long-standing three verdicts has provoked such a wide range of views and some deep concerns from those with the greatest understanding of our justice system. It underlines the care which the Scottish government will need to take if it is going to move forward with removing the not proven verdict.

“However, at a time when we have a huge backlog in court cases and a crisis in legal aid which risks leaving the most vulnerable in our society without the legal help they need, there is a serious question over whether changing Scotland’s verdicts system is a priority for ministers to be focusing on.”