In an effort to contribute to the debate on the ‘not proven’ verdict may I make a simple point which I have not yet seen reflected in any discussion on the matter.

In England, and elsewhere for all I know, juries also have three verdicts available to them viz. ‘guilty’, ‘not guilty’ and “unable-to-reach-a-verdict”. (There are numerical qualifications to this third verdict which I understand but ignore in the interests of simplicity). In England, the last of these verdicts results in an almost automatic re-trial.

During my six years on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board I discussed this matter frequently and at length with many eminent English silks.

If the jury is unable to reach a verdict does that not mean that the presumption of innocence has not been overturned? Why the re-trial?

At least our ‘not proven’ gives effect to the presumption of innocence. Nobody has yet told me that that is not a verdict which an English jury can return. Nor have I yet received a satisfactory answer to my question on the presumption of innocence.

I trust that someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Kevin Drummond QC