Majority favour two verdicts: Scots consultation report
A two verdict rather than three verdict system for Scottish criminal trials has been supported by a majority of respondents to a Scottish Government consultation, according to the analysis report published today.
The report on the responses to the consultation on Scotland’s Not Proven Verdict and Related Reforms also found a smaller majority favouring guilty and not guilty as the two possible verdicts.
The consultation received 200 responses from the public, legal sector and those with lived experience and also considered other potential related reforms including jury size, the majority required for conviction and the requirement for corroboration.
A two verdict system was backed by 62% of respondents, compared with 37% for three verdicts – but not only seven out of eight legal organisations, but also 19 out of 30 respondents with jury experience and five out of six who had been charged with a crime favoured retaining the third verdict.
Those who supported changing to two verdicts reasoned that it would be easier to understand, fairer and more straightforward. Not proven was seen as a compromise verdict which allows jurors to "sit on the fence". Those who took the opposite view believed not proven should be retained to reflect the Crown having failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt even if there was a belief that the accused may be guilty.
Given a two verdict system, 50% of respondents favoured verdicts of guilty and not guilty, compared to 41% who supported proven and not proven – though 65% agreed that a not proven verdict can cause particular trauma to victims of crime and their families. More than half of the legal and advocacy organisations supported the use of guilty and not guilty, but majorities of legal professionals, those working within the justice system, those in the third sector, academics/researchers, victims of crime and jurors favoured the use of proven and not proven.
A majority of respondents (52% to 28%) from a wide range of stakeholders supported a qualified jury majority of some kind if there is a move to two verdicts; 58% supported jury size remaining at 15 jurors, while 19% favoured a reduction to 12.
The consultation also covered the future of the corroboration rule. Here, between 40 and 45% (varying with the different jury scenarios) wanted the rule, while 28-30% supported reform – with some wanting the rule strengthened – and only 10-15% seeking abolition.
Justice Secretary Keith Brown commented: “I am very grateful to all of those individuals and organisations who have taken the time to contribute their views on these matters, particularly those who have shared their personal experience of the justice system.
“We must now give careful consideration to the full range of responses received. The findings from this consultation analysis will be used along with a wide range of other information and evidence to inform the decision making process on any potential recommendations for reform.
“Any potential reforms will be considered alongside wider work including the outcome of the current consultation on improving victims’ experiences of the justice system.”
Responding to the report, Stuart Munro, convener of the Law Society of Scotland’s Criminal Law Committee, said: “It is striking that such a fundamental change as abolishing Scotland’s longstanding three verdicts has provoked such a wide range of views and some deep concerns from those with the greatest understanding of our justice system. It underlines the care which the Scottish Government will need to take if it is going to move forward with removing the not proven verdict.
“However, at a time when we have a huge backlog in court cases and a crisis in legal aid which risks leaving the most vulnerable in our society without the legal help they need, there is a serious question over whether changing Scotland’s verdicts system is a priority for ministers to be focusing on.”