Scottish courts to scrap controversial 'not proven' verdict

[Nearly Sane]

Along with some other reforms, which are, to my mind more interesting. Honestly, not sure what the abolition of not proven is meant to achieve.

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/scottish-courts-set-to-scrap-controversial-not-proven-verdict-in-sweeping-justice-reforms

[jeremyp]

What does having it achieve?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What does having it achieve?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59636522

[Nearly Sane]

What does having it achieve?

Valid point, not sure either way. Getting rid of it though is an actual decision that should be able to he justified?

The removal of jury trials in certain areas is more interesting. Indeed, I think the issue of not proven for reasons of oddity overshadows the other reforms.

[jeremyp]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59636522

That article doesn't list any reasons to keep it, only reasons to get rid of it.

[Nearly Sane]

That article doesn't list any reasons to keep it, only reasons to get rid of it.

Other than 'Not proven is seen by some as offering additional protection to the accused, ensuring they will not be convicted if the jury has any doubts.'

[jeremyp]

Valid point, not sure either way. Getting rid of it though is an actual decision that should be able to he justified?

A couple of reasons to to get rid of it.

1. it might be confusing to the jury. Vlad's article states that there is anecdotal evidence that suggests that some juries mistakenly believe you can have a retrial.

2. it stigmatises the acquitted defendant. If the prosecution can't prove its case, should the defendant have to go round for the rest of his life with this cloud hanging over him.

3. It closes off avenues to build a stronger case (or defence) and have a retrial.

The removal of jury trials in certain areas is more interesting. Indeed, I think the issue of not proven for reasons of oddity overshadows the other reforms.

I agree. I'd want to see a really good argument if jury trials were to be suspended in some instances.

[jeremyp]

Other than 'Not proven is seen by some as offering additional protection to the accused, ensuring they will not be convicted if the jury has any doubts.'

If a jury has reasonable doubt, they should deliver a verdict of not guilty.

[Nearly Sane]

A couple of reasons to to get rid of it.

1. it might be confusing to the jury. Vlad's article states that there is anecdotal evidence that suggests that some juries mistakenly believe you can have a retrial.

2. it stigmatises the acquitted defendant. If the prosecution can't prove its case, should the defendant have to go round for the rest of his life with this cloud hanging over him.

3. It closes off avenues to build a stronger case (or defence) and have a retrial.

I agree. I'd want to see a really good argument if jury trials were to be suspended in some instances.

On your point 2, I have found it interesting to observe the different reactions to the most well known of recent 'not proven' verdicts in the Salmond case. Those who are big supporters of Salmond don't register it at all, and seem to honestly think that he was found innocent. Those against use the not proven verdict as a sort of no smoke without fire.
But that applies to the not guilty verdicts as well. I think peoolr in general in cases like this think what they want to no matter if it's not proven or not guilty.

That said, the most famous case of Not Proven would be Mafeleine Smith, and she certainly felt there was a good case for anonymity later in life.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Smith

[jeremyp]

On your point 2, I have found it interesting to observe the different reactions to the most well known of recent 'not proven' verdicts in the Salmond case. Those who are big supporters of Salmond don't register it at all, and seem to honestly think that he was found innocent. Those against use the not proven verdict as a sort of no smoke without fire.
But that applies to the not guilty verdicts as well. I think peoolr in general in cases like this think what they want to no matter if it's not proven or not guilty.

That said, the most famous case of Not Proven would be Mafeleine Smith, and she certainly felt there was a good case for anonymity later in life.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Smith

I honestly thought Salmond had been fond not guilty of all charges. I didn't realise one of the charges was not proven. The jury is effectively saying to the victim "yeah, he sexually assaulted you, but we're going to let him off".

[Nearly Sane]

I honestly thought Salmond had been fond not guilty of all charges. I didn't realise one of the charges was not proven. The jury is effectively saying to the victim "yeah, he sexually assaulted you, but we're going to let him off".

I am loathe to say what a jury is saying when all I have is the words 'Not Proven' as a summary of all of their views.

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting blog on the question of jury trials being removed for rape cases. I get the issues being raised but see here, as so often, nothing about how to address the idea that prosecution rates for rape and sexual assault are so incredibly low


https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/juryless-trials

[Nearly Sane]

Lots of opposition to the proposed removal of jury trials


https://archive.vn/cwvLk

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting from the Glasgow Bar Association on their members boycotting the proposed pilot of single judge courts


https://twitter.com/GlasgowBarAssoc/status/1654036844957564930?t=U8vmPUHZLPlPKhqBpy45qw&s=19

[Nearly Sane]

And Edinburgh Bar Association also boycotting

[Nearly Sane]

Boycott unanimous


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65531380

[Nearly Sane]

And more issues


https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23528677.lawyers-hit-back-sturgeon-claim-acting-politically/

[Nearly Sane]

This is excellent on the jury issue


https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/05/trial-by-jury/