NICOLA Sturgeon has said it is time to look at whether Scotland retains its controversial not proven verdict.
The First Minister, who trained as a lawyer, said there is mounting evidence it is part of the “shamefully low” conviction rates for rape and sexual assault.
It comes in the wake of calls to scrap the verdict by Rape Crisis Scotland.
The organisation launched a campaign in 2018 along with a woman known as Miss M, who successfully sued the man cleared of raping her for damages in the civil courts.
According to figures from Rape Crisis Scotland, in 2016-17, only 39% of rape and attempted rape cases resulted in convictions, the lowest rate for any type of crime.
Nearly 30% of acquittals were not proven.
Scotland is the only part of the UK where juries can return three verdicts at the end of a trial – guilty, not guilty or not proven.
Sturgeon said: “I do think it is time to look at the not proven verdict.”
Recalling when she studied law at Glasgow University, she said it had been “imprinted on my brain” that the “three totemic things” that make Scots law distinctive were the not proven verdict, the need for corroboration in trials with evidence coming from more than one source, and that there are 15 people needed to make up a jury.
In the past she said “maybe I have had a bit of a lawyer’s view” of the not proven verdict.
But she added: “The conviction rate for rape and sexual assault is shamefully low.
“And I think there is mounting evidence and increasingly strong arguments that the not proven verdict is a part of that.
“So I think it is something that it is time to look at.”
The Scottish Greens will also set out its plans to abolish the not proven verdict today, with a commitment in the party’s manifesto to scrap the “archaic anomaly”.
Co-leader Lorna Slater said: “Having an ambiguous third option as a possible verdict in criminal trials is confusing for juries and unfair on both complainers and the accused.
“Importantly, this verdict is disproportionately used in rape trials where often the victim faces a torrid time in court. That needs to end.
“As well as the risk of victims not getting closure, there is also a stigma attached to the not proven verdict. Anyone being acquitted of a crime would want to hear the words ‘not guilty’ rather than ‘not proven’.”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel