Scotland to abolish 'not proven' verdict in criminal trials, sparking debate on fairness

The Scottish Government introduced legislation to abolish the not proven verdict as part of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act, a move supporters say would standardize verdicts and reduce ambiguity for juries, while critics warn it could affect trial fairness.

Not proven is a distinctive third verdict in Scotland, alongside guilty and not guilty, a legacy of early 18th-century practice that has persisted for nearly 300 years. The origin is linked to the trial of Carnegie of Finhaven in 1728, when jurors, persuaded by defence counsel, returned not guilty; in response, Scottish juries developed the three-verdict framework. By 2025, the standard procedure is for jurors to assess evidence against the charge and determine whether it is proven beyond reasonable doubt or not proven. The proposal to remove not proven is part of a broader effort to simplify the verdicts and, proponents say, to improve conviction rates.

Supporters of the move say the not proven verdict can retraumatize victims and create ambiguity for jurors determining guilt. Justice Minister Angela Constance has argued that the verdict is unclear and, in some cases, acts as a compromise that undermines the public’s confidence in the system. She has also floated the idea that juries should be better protected from complex or conflicting narratives, and she has noted concerns about the effect of rape trials on conviction rates. The government contends that a two-verdict framework would provide clearer outcomes: either proven or not proven, with the court recording the verdict as appropriate.

Opponents counter that the change could reduce the ability of juries to render nuanced judgments in cases where evidence does not meet the high threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but where the prosecution’s case remains credible. Critics warn that forcing a binary choice might lead to more acquittals in borderline cases or, conversely, inappropriate convictions in cases where doubt remains. Some advocacy groups have argued that the plan is driven by a desire to lift conviction rates rather than to safeguard fair trial protections. The leadership of Rape Crisis Scotland, which in 2018 launched an End Not Proven campaign, has emphasized the role of the verdict in recognizing the complexities of sexual offence cases and the impact on survivors to see their experiences reflected in outcomes.

The debate reflects a broader history in Scotland: a legal framework that allowed three verdicts until now, and a public conversation about how verdicts should communicate truth and guilt. Prosecutors and defense lawyers have long worked within the system’s three-branch structure, with juries asked to determine whether the evidence proves the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Critics of abolition argue that the not proven option can acknowledge that the evidence is not strong enough to convict while not labeling the complainant as lying. Proponents say that eliminating the option could reduce confusion and align Scotland with two-verdict systems found elsewhere.

The discussion also includes questions about how juries interpret complex testimony, forensic findings, and corroborating or conflicting statements. Advocates for reform point to the potential for clearer verdicts to improve public understanding and confidence in verdict outcomes. Opponents warn that reducing the spectrum of possible conclusions could oversimplify cases that hinge on credibility, timing, or the synthesis of disparate pieces of evidence. The government’s position emphasizes victims’ welfare and procedural clarity, while critics stress that fair trial protections must be preserved even as verdict structures evolve.

In historical terms, the not proven verdict emerged after a sequence of Scottish trials in the 18th century when juries occasionally delivered non-guilty outcomes that did not equate to a full exoneration. The three-verdict model became a distinctive feature of Scotland’s justice system. Today’s policy move seeks to return to a two-verdict approach: proven or not proven, with the court recording the outcome in a way that remains faithful to the jury’s assessment of the evidence. The proposed reform is moving through the legislative process, with supporters asserting that it would simplify the jury’s task and improve transparency for victims, while opponents warn that it could alter the balance of accountability and undermined nuanced judgments.

As Scotland weighs this change, observers will watch for how trials adapt to the new framework, how juries are instructed to consider evidence, and whether conviction rates change as a result. The discussion underscores a persistent tension in criminal justice: how to balance the clarity of verdicts with the need to preserve fair standards that reflect the complexities of real-world evidence. The outcome remains uncertain, but the issue has already reshaped the conversation about Scotland’s distinctive legal culture within a modern context.