I see the eternal debate about the merits of the ‘not proven’ verdict has flared up again.

May I put forward a suggestion which I feel cuts the Gordian knot and let us have the best of both worlds.

It is this: have two verdicts, called “proven guilty” and “not proven guilty”.

I feel this would re-establish the emphasis on proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as opposed to the jury’s opinion of the accused’s character; remove the perceived stigma of being found ‘not proven’ when ‘not guilty’ was also available; and mitigate any perception that a not guilty verdict means the jury think the complainer is a liar.

It would also put an end to the interminable hand-wringing over what the difference is between ‘not guilty’ and ‘not proven’ and how maintaining the two as distinct verdicts can be justified. Instead of abolishing either one, why not merge them?

If there is any perception among the general public that ‘not guilty’ means the jury were convinced of innocence, whereas ‘not proven’ means they harboured suspicions or thought the accused was of bad character, restoring the word “proven” to the name of each verdict (as was the case before the accident of history that created the three-verdict system) ought to make it clear that what matters is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, or has not.

I am not a criminal law academic and have carried out no research into the proposal, but I cannot immediately see the downside. Perhaps the learned professors, practitioners and civil servants whose business it is will deem this worthy of consideration?

Tim Macdonald