Hansard

I thank the staff of the non-Government bills unit, whose assistance has been invaluable to me over the past number of years.

I am also grateful to the people who contributed to my consultations, and to the legal experts and academics who provided me with advice and support in introducing the bill. They left me in no doubt at all that the bill is necessary. Had I been persuaded otherwise, I would not have persisted with it.

I thank the Justice Committee for its considered scrutiny of my bill and the people and organisations that responded to its call for evidence. To quote the committee’s stage 1 report:

“There is no legal difference between a not guilty and not proven verdict. This raises questions as to the merits of retaining both verdicts.”

To put it simply, a three-verdict system is illogical and confusing. That is particularly so when the jury is not allowed to receive guidance on the difference between the two acquittal verdicts, as Cameron Buchanan highlighted. Court rules prohibit the judge from explaining to a jury the difference between not proven and the other acquittal, not guilty.

As highlighted in the post-corroboration safeguards review report, the standard text on Scottish criminal procedure states:

“The jury should not be told the meaning of the not proven verdict; they need not even be told that it is a verdict of acquittal.”

How on earth can a verdict that cannot and must not be explained to a jury be available to that jury?

In its report, the Justice Committee acknowledged the confusion. It said:

“We note views that this confusion can lead to the effective defamation of the accused where the public believes the not proven verdict implies a degree of culpability; that the accused, in colloquial terms, ‘got away with it’. The Committee acknowledges that a not proven verdict may have social and indeed employment consequences that a not guilty verdict does not.”

However, we need to consider not only the people who are on trial when we deliberate reducing the three verdicts to two. We know that victims and relatives sometimes also find a not proven verdict unacceptable, as it denies them a sense of closure.

In its response to my consultation, Victim Support Scotland said:

“In our experience, for many victims and witnesses, a not proven verdict can be confusing and disappointing. Finality and certainty are crucial elements of an effective criminal justice system. This includes finality and certainty not just on the part of accused persons, but also for victims and victims’ families. A clear and transparent verdict of guilt or innocence from the justice system is often vital for providing victims with a sense of closure.”

In its response to the Justice Committee’s call for evidence, Rape Crisis Scotland said:

“Rape Crisis Scotland supports the removal of the not proven verdict. The not proven verdict is most commonly used in rape cases. According to the Scottish Government, the proportion of people receiving a not proven verdict ... was 15%, the highest for any crime type.”

If the not proven verdict is to be removed, it is essential that guilty verdicts are robust and that such convictions are safe. I recognise that, because that is what we were told in response to my consultation.

Let me respond to Christian Allard’s comments. It must make sense to increase the majority that is required to convict and to take both measures forward at the same time. That is what the evidence from my consultation suggested. In my first consultation, I was told that, if I had brought forward a proposal on the not proven verdict alone, without considering the jury issue, that would have been justification for voting it down. Therefore, he cannot really have it both ways: I cannot not discuss juries, only to have the issue used as a reason to not support the bill.