ISN’T George M Mitchell (Letters, June 9) advocating retention of the not proven verdict on the basis of “we know you did it but can’t quite prove it” the very reason why it should be dispensed with?
If a case can’t be proven, why should anyone suffer the smear of guilt hanging over them like a sword of Damocles? What gives anyone the right to second guess justice?
As one who was offended against, I suffered such a verdict being handed down against me. After an altercation because of their poor behaviour, one of two passengers who’d left my cab launched himself at it, ran 20 metres and did a perfect stunt roll over the bonnet as I was leaving the drop-off point. In fear of further attack I removed myself from the scene, reported the incident to the police and awaited their arrival.
READ MORE: 'Very strong case' for abolishing Not Proven verdict, Justice Secretary says
Two against one, and despite their travelling up from London together at taxpayers’ expense they couldn’t tell the same story under cross-examination. I just told the truth.
However, the judge was clearly thinking along Mr Mitchell’s lines and returned a summary verdict of not proven, which I raised with my lawyer as being unsatisfactory. He simply dismissed me, satisfied with it being an acquittal; this junior counsel delighted to return to his chambers with a victory in a case he was likely expected to lose given it was two witnesses against just me.
The fact is, I was offended against and despite rightly seeking the help of the police, potentially losing my licence and livelihood and being dragged through a worrying court appearance based on the falsehoods of two liars, the judge sending his message to me – and presumably to all cabbies – in a case that was never proven was unwelcome. I no longer sit on a jury because of my experiences of the justice system, incurred through doing a difficult job with members of the public.
Proven or not proven. Guilty or not guilty. Either will do, we just don’t need the mixture with the ridiculous and unfair connotation that Mr Mitchell and this judge attach to the not proven verdict.
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
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