Not proven

Last updated November 08, 2024

Not proven (Scots : No pruiven, Scottish Gaelic : gun dearbhadh^[1]) is a verdict available to a court of law in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts, one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty").^[2]^[3]

Between the Restoration in the late 17th century and the early 18th century, jurors in Scotland were expected only to find whether individual factual allegations were proven or not proven, rather than to rule on an accused's guilt.^[4] In 1728, the jury in a murder trial asserted "its ancient right" to declare a defendant "not guilty".^[5] Over time, the "not guilty" verdict regained wide acceptance and use amongst Scots juries, with the encouragement of defence lawyers. It eventually displaced "not proven" as the primary verdict of acquittal. Nowadays, juries can return a verdict of either "not guilty" or "not proven", with the same legal effect of acquittal.^[6]

Although historically it may be a similar verdict to not guilty, in the present day not proven is typically used by a jury when there is a belief that the defendant is guilty but The Crown has not provided sufficient evidence.^[7] Scots law requires corroboration; the evidence of one witness, however credible, is not sufficient to prove a charge against an accused or to establish any material or crucial fact.

In Scotland, there have been attempts to abolish what Sir Walter Scott famously called that bastard verdict.^[8] In 1827, Scott, who was sheriff in the court of Selkirk, wrote in his journal that "the jury gave that bastard verdict, Not proven.^[9]

It is proposed to remove the not proven verdict as part of a 2023 judicial reform.^[10]

History

By the early 17th century, the standard practice of juries in Scotland was to return a finding of "fylet, culpable and convict" or "clene, innocent and acquit".^[11] This changed in the late 17th century, at which point the role of the jury became simply to "declare whether or not the facts alleged had been proved", with the judge left to determine, based on that declaration, whether the accused was guilty or not.^[12]

There is some disagreement between historians as to why this change happened. David Hume and Hugo Arnot argue that it was rooted in religious oppression. The Crown persecuted the Covenanters but popular support made it impossible to convict them in a jury trial. To pare the power of the jury, the Scottish judges began restricting the jury's role: no longer would the jury announce whether the accused was "guilty" or "not guilty"; instead it would decide whether specific factual allegations were "proven" or "not proven"; and the judge would then decide whether to convict.

Reintroduction of "not guilty"

In 1728, in the trial of Carnegie of Finhaven for the murder of the Earl of Strathmore, the defence lawyer (Robert Dundas) persuaded a jury to reassert its ancient right of acquitting, of finding an accused "not guilty", in spite of the facts being proven. The law required the jury merely to look at the facts and pass a verdict of "proven" or "not proven" depending on whether they believed the evidence proved that the accused had killed the Earl. Carnegie had undoubtedly killed the Earl, but had also clearly not intended to do so. If the jury brought in a "proven" verdict they would in effect constrain the judge to find Carnegie guilty of murder, for which the punishment was hanging. To avert this outcome, the jury asserted what it believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts, and brought in the verdict of "not guilty".

The reintroduction of the "not guilty" verdict was part of a wider movement during the 17th and 18th century which saw a gradual increase in the power of juries,^{[ citation needed ]} such as the trial of William Penn in 1670, in which an English jury first gained the right to pass a verdict contrary to the law (known as jury nullification), and the trial of John Peter Zenger in New York in 1735 in which jury nullification is credited with establishing freedom of the press as a firm right in what became the United States. Legal academic Ian Willock argues that the 1728 case was "of great significance in calling a halt to a process of attrition which might have led to the total extinction of the criminal jury".^[4]

Although jurors continued to use both "not guilty" and "not proven" after 1728, jurors tended to favour the "not guilty" verdict over the "not proven" and the interpretation changed.^{[ citation needed ]}

Calls for reform

There have been repeated calls to abolish the "not proven" verdict since the middle of the 20th century.^[13] In 1975, the Thomson Committee on Criminal Procedure in Scotland (chaired by Lord Thomson) recommended retaining the three-verdict system.^[14] The Scottish Office consulted on removing "not proven" in 1994.^[15] Unsuccessful attempts to scrap the "not proven" verdict were made in Parliament by Donald Dewar in 1969, George Robertson in 1993 (prompted by the trial outcome in the murder of Amanda Duffy) and Lord Macauly of Bragar in 1995.^[15] A members' bill to abolish the "not proven" verdict was debated in the Scottish Parliament in 2016, but was rejected by 80 votes to 28.^[16]

Proponents of reform argue that the "not proven" verdict is widely regarded as an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the accused person's innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict. Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but guilt has not been proven "beyond reasonable doubt".^[6] Conversely, its opponents argue that a two-verdict system would lead to an increase in wrongful convictions.^[3]

Following a not proven verdict in a criminal trial in 2015, Miss M successfully sued Stephen Coxen in the civil courts, in what was the first civil damages action for rape following an unsuccessful criminal prosecution in almost 100 years. In 2018, Miss M launched #EndNotProven alongside Rape Crisis Scotland, calling for Not Proven to be removed and citing the disproportionate use in rape cases, the widespread misunderstandings of the verdict and fears that it is being used as an 'easy way out' by jurors.^[17]

In April 2023, the Scottish government published the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill which, if passed, will abolish the not proven verdict.^[18] In April 2024, the Scottish Parliament voted to advance the bill to Stage 2, where members can submit amendments on the bill to committee.^[19]

Current procedure

In Scotland, a criminal case may be decided either in solemn procedure by a jury (instructed by the judge), or in summary procedure by the judge alone (with no jury appointed). There are various rules for when the one or the other procedure may or must be employed; in general, juries are employed for the more severe accusations, while petty crimes and offences are treated summarily. A criminal case jury consists of fifteen jurors, who make their decision by a simple majority vote: eight votes are necessary and sufficient for the verdict guilty,^[2] which has replaced the verdict proven.

Approximately one-third of all acquittal verdicts by Scottish juries use the formulation not proven; the others use not guilty. The verdict not proven also is available for judges in the summary procedure, and is employed in about a fifth of such acquittals.^[2] The proportion of not proven acquittals, in general, is higher in the more severe cases; but so then are the proportion of acquittals versus convictions. This might have many different reasons, for example that on average it might be more difficult to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the more severe cases.^[3]

Not proven is sometimes interpreted^{[ by whom? ]} as indicating that the jury or judge is not convinced of the innocence of the accused; in fact, they may be convinced that the accused is guilty, but do not find the evidence sufficient for a conviction.

Use in other jurisdictions

In general, the Scottish verdict has not been permanently adopted outside its home country, but it was sometimes used in colonial Canada, especially by some judges in southwestern Ontario ^{[ citation needed ]}. Its most famous use in the United States came when Senator Arlen Specter tried to vote "not proven" on the two articles of impeachment of Bill Clinton ^[20] (his votes were recorded as "not guilty"^[3]) and when, at the O. J. Simpson murder case, various reformers, including Fred Goldman, Ron Goldman's father, pushed for a change to "not proven" because of what they felt was an incorrect presumption of innocence on the part of Simpson. The verdict is often referenced in US cases where the jury is obliged to find the state has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is widespread feeling that the defendant does not deserve the exoneration of a "not guilty" verdict. A popular saying about the "not proven" verdict is that it means "not guilty, but don't do it again".^[21]

In 2005, a proposal was made in the University of Chicago Law Review to introduce the not proven verdict into the United States.^[3]

Notable cases which resulted in a not proven verdict

Sir Hugh Campbell and Sir George Campbell for being present at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge in 1684
Alfred John Monson, in relation to the Ardlamont murder
Madeleine Smith, accused of murdering her boyfriend by poison
Helen McDougal, in relation to the Burke and Hare murders
Alan Peters, in relation to the murder of Maxwell Garvie
Donald Merrett, tried in February 1927 for the murder of his mother^[22]
John Leslie, in relation to an alleged sexual assault
Francis Auld, accused of the murder of Amanda Duffy
Alex Salmond, on a single charge out of the 14 he faced, following the criminal prosecution brought against him

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law – in civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions bars only an identical prosecution for the same offence; however, a different offence may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial. Res judicata protection is stronger – it precludes any causes of action or claims that arise from a previously litigated subject matter.

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Most trial juries are "petit juries", and usually consist of twelve people. A larger jury known as a grand jury has been used to investigate potential crimes and render indictments against suspects.

Jury nullification, also known in the United Kingdom as jury equity, or a perverse verdict, is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses. Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.
In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offense.

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.

The High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court in Scotland. The High Court is both a trial court and a court of appeal. As a trial court, the High Court sits on circuit at Parliament House or in the adjacent former Sheriff Court building in the Old Town in Edinburgh, or in dedicated buildings in Glasgow and Aberdeen. The High Court sometimes sits in various smaller towns in Scotland, where it uses the local sheriff court building. As an appeal court, the High Court sits only in Edinburgh. On one occasion the High Court of Justiciary sat outside Scotland, at Zeist in the Netherlands during the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, as the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. At Zeist the High Court sat both as a trial court, and an appeal court for the initial appeal by Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. A hung jury may result in the case being tried again.

A bench trial is a trial by judge, as opposed to a trial by jury. The term applies most appropriately to any administrative hearing in relation to a summary offense to distinguish the type of trial. Many legal systems use bench trials for most or all cases or for certain types of cases.

Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities commonly used in civil cases because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty or, in extreme cases, life, as well as suffering the collateral consequences and social stigma attached to a conviction. The prosecution is tasked with providing evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction; albeit prosecution may fail to complete such task, the trier-of-fact's acceptance that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will in theory lead to conviction of the defendant. A failure for the trier-of-fact to accept that the standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been met thus entitles the accused to an acquittal. This standard of proof is widely accepted in many criminal justice systems, and its origin can be traced to Blackstone's ratio, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law of Canada</span>

The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes.

In France, a cour d'assises, or Court of Assizes or Assize Court, is a criminal trial court with original and appellate limited jurisdiction to hear cases involving defendants accused of felonies, meaning crimes as defined in French law. It is the only French court that uses a jury trial.

The court of assizes is the trial court which tries the most serious crimes in the judicial system of Belgium. It is the highest Belgian court with criminal jurisdiction; as such, it is the only Belgian court that can sentence someone to life imprisonment. The courts of assizes are not permanent courts; a new court of assizes is assembled for each new trial. There is a court of assizes in each of the ten provinces of Belgium, as well as one in the arrondissement of Brussels-Capital which is not part of any province. Further below, an overview is provided of the eleven courts of assizes and their seats. They are the only courts in Belgium for which the provinces are used as territorial subdivisions. They are also the only courts in Belgium that hold jury trials. The jury acts as sole trier of fact, but decides on the penalty together with the judges. The trial by jury of certain crimes is laid down in article 150 of the Belgian Constitution. The Belgian courts of assizes have the same origin as their French namesakes.

In the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, there is a long tradition of jury trial that has evolved over centuries. Under present-day practice, juries are generally summoned for criminal trials in the Crown Court where the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way. All common law civil cases were tried by jury until the introduction of juryless trials in the new county courts in 1846, and thereafter the use of juries in civil cases steadily declined. Liability to be called upon for jury service is covered by the Juries Act 1974.

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution; federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It has its origins in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

Scots criminal law relies far more heavily on common law than in England and Wales. Scottish criminal law includes offences against the person of murder, culpable homicide, rape and assault, offences against property such as theft and malicious mischief, and public order offences including mobbing and breach of the peace. Scottish criminal law can also be found in the statutes of the UK Parliament with some areas of criminal law, such as misuse of drugs and traffic offences appearing identical on both sides of the Border. Scottish criminal law can also be found in the statute books of the Scottish Parliament such as the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 and Prostitution (Scotland) Act 2007 which only apply to Scotland. In fact, the Scots requirement of corroboration in criminal matters changes the practical prosecution of crimes derived from the same enactment. Corroboration is not required in England or in civil cases in Scotland. Scots law is one of the few legal systems that require corroboration.

A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

Trial by jury in Scotland is used in the courts of Scotland in solemn procedure for trial on indictment before a judge and jury for serious criminal cases, and in certain civil cases.

A special defence in Scots law may be raised in criminal proceedings upon notice by the accused ahead of the trial. If established, it results in an acquittal. The only purpose of the special defence procedure is to give fair notice: it does not prejudice the plea of not guilty by an accused; the Crown still must prove the acts charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933 is an act of the Parliament at Westminster legislating for Scotland which introduced changes in Scottish legal procedure "following the recommendations of a Royal Commission which reported in 1927".

References

↑ "Adhbhar tubaiste fhathast gun dearbhadh". BBC. 16 July 2012.
1 2 3 The Scottish criminal jury: A very peculiar institution , Peter Duff, 62 Law & Contemp. Probs. 173 (Spring 1999)
1 2 3 4 5 Bray, Samuel (2005). "Not Proven: Introducing a Third Verdict". University of Chicago Law Review. 72 (4): 1299–1329. SSRN 1339222.
1 2 Chalmers, James; Leverick, Fiona (29 September 2017). "Blog: No, 'not proven' did not come first". Scottish Legal News . Retrieved 29 October 2018.
↑ Barbato, Joseph M. (2004). "Scotland's Bastard Verdict: Intermediacy and the unique three-verdict system". Ind. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 15 (3): 543–582. doi: 10.18060/17848 .
1 2 "Not proven verdict 'on borrowed time', say MSPs". BBC. 9 February 2016. Retrieved 4 April 2018.
↑ "Scottish jury research: findings from a mock jury study". Scottish Government. 9 October 2019.
↑ "Plea for 'not proven' abolition". BBC News. 28 March 2007. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
↑ Scott, W.; Douglas, D. (2013). The Journal of Sir Walter Scott: Volume 1: From the Original Manuscript at Abbotsford. Cambridge Library Collection – Literary Studies. Cambridge University Press. p. 361. ISBN 978-1-108-06429-3 . Retrieved 16 October 2021.
↑ "Not proven verdict to be scrapped in Scottish courts". BBC News. 26 April 2023. Retrieved 30 April 2023.
↑ Willock, Ian (1966). The Origins and Development of the Jury in Scotland. Stair Society. p. 217.
↑ Willock, Ian (1966). The Origins and Development of the Jury in Scotland. Stair Society. pp. 218–19.
↑ John Gray Wilson (1960). Not Proven. Secker and Warburg. pp. 7–8.
↑ "Reforming Scots Criminal Law and Practice: The Carloway Report: Footnotes" . Retrieved 29 October 2018.
1 2 "Official Report: Meeting of the Parliament 25 February 2016". 25 February 2016. Retrieved 29 October 2018.
↑ "MSPs reject attempt to abolish 'not proven' verdict from Scots law". Scottish Legal News . 26 February 2016. Retrieved 29 October 2018.
↑ "End Not Proven". Rape Crisis Scotland. Retrieved 13 March 2024.
↑ "Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill: factsheet". Gov.scot. 26 April 2023. Retrieved 26 April 2023.
↑ "Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill". Parliament.scot. 23 April 2024. Retrieved 4 June 2024.
↑ Specter, Arlen (12 February 1999). "Sen. Specter's closed-door impeachment statement". CNN. Retrieved 13 March 2008. My position in the matter is that the case has not been proved. I have gone back to Scottish law where there are three verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proved. I am not prepared to say on this record that President Clinton is not guilty. But I am certainly not prepared to say that he is guilty. There are precedents for a Senator voting present. I hope that I will be accorded the opportunity to vote not proved in this case. [...] But on this record, the proofs are not present. Juries in criminal cases under the laws of Scotland have three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, not proven. Given the option in this trial, I suspect that many Senators would choose 'not proven' instead of 'not guilty'. That is my verdict: not proven. The President has dodged perjury by calculated evasion and poor interrogation. Obstruction of justice fails by gaps in the proofs.
↑ "Readings And Links – Is The Criminal Trial A Search For Truth? | The O. J. Verdict | FRONTLINE | PBS". PBS.
↑ Evans, Colin (30 January 2003). A question of evidence : a casebook of great forensic controversies, from Napoleon to O. J. : Evans, Colin, 1948- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780471462682 . Retrieved 15 August 2020– via Internet Archive.