Unjust, unfair and confusing: Why we must abolish 'Not Proven'

By Kate Wallace, Chief Executive of Victim Support Scotland

This article first appeared in The Herald on 2 August 2025.

This summer, members of the Scottish Parliament will return from recess to finalise one of the most significant pieces of legislation in recent memory: the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill.

Among the critical reforms proposed is the long-overdue abolition of the ‘Not Proven’ verdict – a relic of Scottish criminal law that has confused juries and denied justice to victims for far too long.

Victim Support Scotland welcomes this potential step forward and urges our political leaders to see the removal of this verdict not just as a legislative change, but as a necessity for modern justice.

Scotland is the only country in the world to have the ‘Not Proven’ verdict alongside ‘Guilty’ and ‘Not Guilty’. But unlike its counterparts, ‘Not Proven’ has no official legal definition – a bizarre fact that I’ve found most people are shocked to discover.

As Professor James Chalmers pointed out in a previous Herald article, the verdict came about through pure accident in the first place in the 1700s. So why are we still clinging on to it?

To the average person, the lack of definition of ‘Not Proven’ creates a feeling of uncertainty about how exactly it should be used in a trial. Jurors are offered no specific guidance on how to return this verdict, only being told that it provides the same acquittal as Not Guilty - leaving it wide open for misinterpretation.

When juries return a Not Proven verdict, the accused is acquitted and walks free. But the implications for victims are complex.

For victims and survivors of crime, a Not Proven verdict feels like a denial of their experience. It offers no closure, clarity, or comfort. Instead, it leaves open-ended questions and deep emotional scars. For the accused, we are told, it can cast a shadow of suspicion over them for the rest of their lives that they feel unable to address.

Cases of rape and attempted rape disproportionately result in a ‘Not Proven’ acquittal – in 2019/20, 44% of acquittals were Not Proven, compared to 20% across all crimes and offences.1 One of the most prominent cases involved Miss M, who won a landmark civil case against Andrew Coxen for rape after he was found Not Proven in a criminal trial.

Not Proven has also been contentious in murder trials. After the killing of Amanda Duffy in 1992, Francis Auld, the man accused of murdering her, was given a Not Proven verdict.

The Duffy family later won a civil case against him, with a judge awarding them £50,000 in damages after finding him responsible for her death. However, the Duffy family never received any of this award. The Duffy family, like Miss M, have since been passionate campaigners for change in this area.

Victim Support Scotland works daily with people whose lives have been affected by crime – many of whom have seen their hopes for justice dashed by the Not Proven verdict.

Not Proven continues to be delivered as a verdict in more recent murder trials. Yvonne’s husband was killed in 2022, and the accused was handed a Not Proven verdict. Yvonne said:

“When I got the verdict, I felt let down by the justice system.

“I was told about a year before that I had a very strong case, so I just feel let down. I’ve asked about the options for the case to be looked at again and they’ve told me that the accused can’t be retried unless they admit to guilt.

“I think I would rather have had Not Guilty than a Not Proven, and think my family would have too. I would still have been angry, but I don’t think I would have so many questions. Because to me, if it was 'Not Guilty', then Crown didn’t prove the guilt. While as a 'Not Proven', what did the jury see that was not strong enough?”

Yvonne’s experience is not an isolated one. After the trauma of the crime and the subsequent court process, to be told that the verdict is Not Proven leaves many feeling like their suffering has been dismissed.

As Yvonne points out, with Not Proven, like Not Guilty, there is no scope for a retrial unless there is a subsequent admission of guilt, new evidence is found, or perjury is admitted.

As the system currently stands, this means there is often no real hope for justice, leaving victims and their families feeling powerless and forgotten.

Abolishing the Not Proven verdict is not a radical departure for Scotland’s legal system – it is an essential reform that brings us in line with international standards and modern principles of justice.

It will improve the clarity of decision-making for juries, ensuring that verdicts are understood by all. It will also help victims better comprehend the outcome of trials and provide a sense of closure.

Crucially, it might help to increase the paltry levels of public trust in Scotland’s legal system. The latest Scottish Crime and Justice Survey revealed that only 36% of people are confident that the criminal justice system gives sentences which fit the crime. This is down significantly, from 41% in 2021/22.

Some have argued that the issue of Not Proven is inextricably linked to other aspects of jury reform, such as jury size and the required majority for conviction. While these are important discussions to have, they must not be used to delay progress. The Not Proven verdict can – and should – be abolished on its own merits.

As the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill returns to Parliament for debate at Stage 3, MSPs face a pivotal choice: continue to uphold a confusing and outdated element of Scottish law, or take a decisive step toward a clearer, fairer justice system.

Victim Support Scotland has long called for the removal of the Not Proven verdict. We urge every MSP to listen to the voices of victims and the wider public and play their part in creating a fairer system.

Its abolition would mark a milestone in the journey toward a more just and compassionate Scottish legal system – one that puts the rights and wellbeing of victims at its heart.