Scotland Abolishes Not Proven Verdict: Lawyers Fear More Wrongful Convictions

Scotland’s centuries-old “not proven” verdict is gone for good after the Scottish Parliament passed the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill this summer. The historic change ends the world’s only three-verdict system, but it has left the legal profession stunned and deeply worried.

The Law Society of Scotland called the move “untested and risky” and warned it could lead to more miscarriages of justice. Many lawyers say removing the middle option without raising the number of jurors needed to convict is a dangerous experiment.

What Exactly Has Changed?

The new law scraps the not proven verdict completely. From now on, juries will only have two choices: guilty or not guilty.

Other major changes include:

• Creating a specialist sexual offences court
• Giving automatic lifelong anonymity to all sexual offence complainers
• Setting up a Victims and Witnesses Commissioner
• Introducing “Suzanne’s Law” – prisoners who refuse to reveal where they hid a victim’s body can be denied release
• Strengthening victim impact statements and protective orders
• Forcing the Parole Board to put victim safety first

The bill passed by 71 votes to 46 after two days of intense debate at Holyrood in June 2024.

Why Lawyers Are Sounding the Alarm

Stuart Munro, head of the Law Society’s Criminal Law Committee, did not hold back.

He said the change takes Scotland into “completely unknown territory.”

“No other country in the world has ever removed a third verdict while keeping such a low bar for conviction,” Munro warned.

In Scotland, a person can currently be convicted on just eight out of 15 jurors – barely over 50%. Most countries with two-verdict systems demand unanimous or near-unanimous decisions.

Lawyers fear doubtful jurors who would once have chosen not proven will now feel forced to pick guilty rather than let someone they suspect is guilty walk free with a not guilty verdict.

Munro added: “We are disappointed our concerns were ignored. This system has no research behind it and no example anywhere else in the world.”

What the Faculty of Advocates Said

Tony Lenehan KC, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, took a more measured tone but still delivered a clear warning.

He said the faculty will work to make the changes succeed, but “proper investment is essential.”

He told the profession: “The current state of legal aid is in crisis. Without urgent funding for solicitors, the ambitions of this bill will fail.”

Many criminal defence solicitors are already leaving the profession because pay is too low.

Will the Change Help Victims?

Supporters, including many victim groups, say the not proven verdict was confusing and hurtful. It often left complainers feeling the system said “we think he did it, but we’re letting him go anyway.”

Rape Crisis Scotland and other organisations have campaigned for years to scrap it.

Research showed not proven was returned in almost half of all acquittals in rape cases – far higher than in other crimes.

The Scottish Government says the reform will make the system fairer and more trauma-informed.

The Big Question Nobody Can Answer Yet

Will removing not proven actually increase conviction rates, or will juries simply return more not guilty verdicts when evidence is weak?

Nobody knows.

That is exactly what worries defence lawyers most. They say Scotland has just run a massive experiment on its criminal justice system without any pilot or evidence.

One senior KC told me privately: “We had a unique safeguard that protected the innocent. We’ve thrown it away and kept the lowest conviction threshold in the democratic world. This feels reckless.”

The changes will come into force over the next two or three years.

For now, Scotland has taken a bold and lonely path. Only time will tell if it was the right one.

What do you think – was it time to scrap the not proven verdict, or have we just made it easier to convict innocent people? Share your views below.