🔗 Share this article Landmark Judicial Changes in Scottish Courts: Not Proven Removed as Lawmakers Back New Measures Plans to abolish the Scottish controversial acquittal option have been passed by MSPs. The move is part of comprehensive legal changes that will also heighten the standard for a guilty verdict in court proceedings and introduce a specialist court for sexual crimes. Abolition of the not proven, which is distinctive to Scotland’s legal system and originates to the 17th Century, will mark a significant turning point in the Scotland’s justice system. Supporters maintain that it lowers the chance of wrongful conviction, while opponents claim the verdict is misleading and does not to provide resolution for complainants. Significant Measures Approved These changes were featured in the Scottish Government’s justice reform legislation, which was approved by a margin of 71 to 46. This acquittal option is among three verdicts that can be returned in criminal proceedings, in addition to guilty and not guilty. It results in the identical outcome as being acquitted—the defendant is released and is innocent in the interpretation of the court. Over the years, there were appeals to abolish this option in modern times, often driven by loved ones of those affected who felt disappointed by what they view as an unfair outcome. Understanding the Third Verdict No clear legal explanation of the third verdict in law. When a trial begins, jury members are informed that there are two acquittal verdicts—but it is not explained. A government minister stated that it was a “often misinterpreted” verdict that “distresses” complainants and leaves a “persistent doubt” on the defendant. On the other hand, legal bodies have cautioned that its removal could lead to an rise in unjust outcomes. A study published in recent years indicated that abolishing the not proven verdict might lead more jury members towards a guilty verdict in tightly contested trials. It also pointed out varied views on the interpretation of this outcome and how it varied from clearance. Latest national data indicate that a minority of people facing charges in court were released on a this option, as opposed to 4% on a acquittal verdict. Additional Changes and Impact The bill also include a change in how conviction verdicts are determined. The judicial panel have 15 members, and currently a basic majority of eight is required for a verdict. With the new stricter standard, that will be increased to ten jurors. Elevating the standard for guilty verdicts is intended to allay concerns of some legal representatives who believe that the removal of the third verdict could raise the risk of miscarriages of justice. The measures also introduce: establishment of a specialist tribunal a new official role to oversee rights of victims an obligation for the parole authority to take into account whether a convicted killer has declined to reveal the whereabouts of their victim’s remains expansion of regulations that restrict what can be discussed in court about a complainer’s past behavior a trial scheme giving those affected of rape complimentary copies to court transcripts Ministers have not announced a timetable for removing the not proven verdict or enacting the two-thirds majority for conviction verdicts. These changes will necessitate judicial officials and legal professionals to receive training. It could take a longer period to introduce a specialist court and a victims commissioner. Most rape cases reported to police do not lead to legal action. In response, the government suggested a experiment that would have enabled proceedings for serious sexual offences to be held by a judge alone. However, the proposal was abandoned following objections from lawyers and the judiciary. Reactions and Discussion An advocacy group stated the approval of the bill was a “momentous occasion”. “This represents a notable progression towards creating a system that considers the interests of people impacted by crime,” it was noted. Parliament saw broad agreement over removing the third verdict, but some opposition MSPs raised reservations about implementing such a sweeping package of measures in a comprehensive act. A Conservative MSP argued that the legislation would “use millions on ineffective measures that will make minimal impact to victims”. An opposition representative expressed apprehensions about taking rape trials out of the current system and into a new tribunal. Another colleague commented that the bill was “far too large” and that several changes received inadequate review. But, an advocate said that the bill would help deliver “support, fairness and legal redress for victims”.