🔗 Share this article Major Legal Overhaul in Scottish Courts: Not Proven Abolished as MSPs Approve Sweeping Measures Plans to scrap Scotland’s controversial not proven have been backed by lawmakers. This decision is included in wide-ranging legal changes that will also increase the bar for a guilty verdict in jury trials and establish a special court for sexual crimes. Abolition of the third verdict, which is found only to Scottish justice and can be traced to the 1600s, will mark a major milestone in the country’s legal history. Advocates argue that it reduces the possibility of false guilty verdicts, while critics claim the verdict is unclear and cannot to provide resolution for complainants. Key Measures Backed The reforms were included in the government’s justice reform legislation, which was approved by a margin of 71 to 46. Not proven is a triple option verdicts that can be returned in Scottish trials, alongside guilty and not guilty. It results in the equivalent result as being found not guilty—the defendant is cleared and is not guilty in the eyes of the court. There have been calls to do away with this option in the past years, frequently driven by families of victims who felt disappointed by what they view as an unfair outcome. Understanding the Third Verdict No clear fixed meaning of this outcome in legislation. At the start, jurors are informed that there are two acquittal verdicts—yet the difference is not clarified. A government minister remarked that it was a “widely misunderstood” verdict that “distresses” complainants and leaves a “persistent doubt” on the accused. On the other hand, advocacy organizations have warned that its elimination could lead to an increase in unjust outcomes. An analysis conducted in the past decade suggested that abolishing the not proven verdict might persuade more jury members towards a conviction verdict in tightly contested trials. Additionally, it highlighted inconsistent views on the meaning of the verdict and how it differed from clearance. Current official figures reveal that 1% of people facing charges in court were acquitted on a this option, as opposed to more individuals on a clearance verdict. Other Reforms and Implications These changes also include a adjustment in how guilty verdicts are determined. The judicial panel have fifteen jurors, and at present a simple majority of eight jurors is required for a verdict. Under the new stricter standard, that will be raised to 10 out of 15. Elevating the standard for conviction verdicts is designed to allay concerns of some defense lawyers who worry that the abolition of the third verdict could raise the chance of miscarriages of justice. The reforms also enable: the creation of a special sexual offences court a victims and witnesses commissioner to ensure support quality a requirement for the parole authority to consider whether a convicted killer has declined to reveal the site of their victim’s remains the extension of rules that restrict what can be raised in court about a victim’s sexual history a trial scheme giving complainants of sexual assault no-cost availability to court records The government have not set a timeframe for scrapping the not proven verdict or enacting the new jury threshold for guilty verdicts. These measures will require judicial officials and personnel to undergo education. It could take significantly longer to set up a sexual offences court and a new commissioner. The majority of sexual offence reports brought to law enforcement do not lead to prosecutions. In response, ministers suggested a pilot scheme that would have enabled trials for rape and assault to be held by a judge alone. However, the proposal was abandoned following criticism from advocates and court officials. Reactions and Views A charity chief said the adoption of the bill was a “momentous occasion”. “It signifies a notable progression towards creating a system that prioritizes the requirements of people harmed by crime,” she added. Lawmakers expressed general support over removing the not proven verdict, but some opposition MSPs voiced reservations about pushing through such a wide range of reforms in a single piece of legislation. An opposition member stated that the legislation would “waste millions on ineffective measures that will make no real change to victims”. An opposition representative expressed worries about taking serious sexual offence cases out of the current system and into a dedicated venue. Another colleague stated that the bill was “far too large” and that several changes received insufficient review. But, an advocate said that the bill would help deliver “empathy, respect and justice for victims”.