I WAS encouraged to see Ian MacTaggart’s letter (April 5) proposing adoption of the proven and not proven verdicts, followed by three others on April 6.
As a retired Justice of the Peace of more than 30 years’ experience of trials in a bench of three, like those correspondents I believe the not proven verdict should be retained. If we approach this logically, it is the “not guilty” verdict that should be under examination.
Legal historians would do better than me in setting out the usage of the respective verdicts but it is my understanding that around the Restoration in 1660 procedures changed towards proven and not proven, leaving the judge to pronounce guilt or otherwise. This placed facts in the domain of the jury and law in the hands of the judge. But it was when a jury wished to assert innocence at the trial of Carnegie of Finhaven in 1728 that they returned a finding not guilty, taking the decision out of the hand of the judge and subsequently leading to the use of three verdicts.
READ MORE: Scottish courts should have two choices of verdict: proven and not proven
Given that court procedure is a rehearsal of the case for and against, supported by evidence, it would be far more logical that a bench or jury accepts a case for one or the other as in a debate, where a motion would be carried or not carried, viz. the argument has been proven or not proven.
Further, since the bench or jury is expected to consider whether the prosecution has established a case “beyond reasonable doubt” then it is entirely logical that the formal nomenclature to be used to describe the outcome should be that the case against the accused has “been proven”, in other words has surpassed the measure of the yardstick.
This exposes the weakness in the argument of those who expect the abolition of not proven verdicts to lead to more convictions in rape cases. The inherent doubt that currently leads to a not proven verdict must be given to the accused and so its removal would surely result in more verdicts of not guilty.
We should embrace the proven and not proven verdicts as being logical, rather than move to replace them with those that apply in other countries as some matter of convention, or sensation driven by the media.
John C Hutchison
Fort William
THE availability of three verdicts to Scottish juries shows what happens when our legal structures are thoughtlessly anglicised without regard to the existing Scottish system.
The original two verdicts in Scots law were “proven” and “ not proven”. This is clearly more logical than the English legal tradition of “guilty” and “not guilty”. The court is, after all, supposed to focus on the evidence and whether there is enough of it to prove that the alleged events took place, rather than on the individual and whether or not he is guilty. There is no requirement to find him innocent.
The English tradition appears to have been superimposed on Scots Law with little discussion and without anyone bothering to clear out what was already there.
If the three verdicts are to be reduced, logically the original “proven” and “not proven” verdicts should be reinstated.
Mary McCabe
Glasgow
HAVING had the experience of sitting on a number of Crown Court juries down south, where there is not the option of a “not proven” verdict, and having struggled with what makes a decision “beyond reasonable doubt”, my view has experience behind it! What constitutes “beyond reasonable doubt”? What hard evidence do we, on the jury, have to make our decision on? We need “corroboration” to come to a “beyond reasonable doubt” decision.
READ MORE: Not everyone agrees there's a ‘strong case’ for ditching not proven verdict
One case I was on, the entire jury considered that the accused “most probably did” commit the offence, but that was not beyond reasonable doubt, so a not guilty verdict was given. That the removal of the “not proven” option will increase the conviction rate is an assumption. With the requirement of beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials, a substantial proportion of the verdicts may be “not guilty”. With the option of”‘not proven” still available, the issue can be taken to civil court, where “most probably did” is enough for a satisfactory verdict for the victim and punishment for the accused. I understand that a lawyer’s view may be different from person on a jury. Also I understand that, considering recent history, it maybe politically expedient to raise the issue.
Richard Lennard
Milngavie
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here