Scotland’s legal landscape is undergoing historic change. With Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) voting to abolish the centuries-old “not proven” verdict, the nation stands at the crossroads of clarity, fairness, and modern justice. This pivotal shift—part of broader reforms aiming to support victims, recalibrate jury decisions, and build trust—will ripple across courts, communities, and legal thought for generations.
Introduction: The Case for Reform
For over three centuries, Scotland stood apart with its distinctive three-verdict system in criminal trials: “guilty,” “not guilty,” and “not proven.” The last, unique among world legal systems, has often mystified jurors, left victims without closure, and sparked debate over fairness, justice, and due process. In September 2025, MSPs voted decisively to abolish “not proven,” aligning Scottish law with two-verdict systems and catalyzing a broader reimagining of justice, rights, and public trust.
What Is the “Not Proven” Verdict?
Unlike “guilty” and “not guilty,” the “not proven” verdict was neither a formal acquittal nor a declaration of innocence. It functioned as an acquittal—with the accused freed and presumed innocent—but it carried an implied shadow: some jurors, some observers believed guilt was possible but had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Emerging in the 17th century, “not proven” became a third option for Scottish juries, meant to prevent wrongful conviction in cases lacking robust evidence.
The practical effect of “not proven” matched “not guilty.” But for victims, complainants, and many accused, its use was confusing and unsettling. The Law Society of Scotland acknowledged widespread misunderstanding, and official studies confirmed varying interpretations among jurors and the public.
Origins and Evolution: Why Did Scotland Keep Three Verdicts?
The roots of “not proven” lie deep in Scots law. Historically, the lack of clear legal definitions, the tradition of jury independence, and skepticism toward coercion led lawmakers to include a third option beyond the binary choices common elsewhere. Over time, the verdict became an emblem of Scottish difference and legal caution, giving juries a way to avoid outright acquittal in ambiguous cases.
However, as justice systems everywhere have evolved, so too has Scotland’s. Critics argued that “not proven” provided neither closure nor clarity, muddled the public understanding of trials, and contributed to low conviction rates—particularly in sexual offences cases.
Contemporary Critiques: Victims, Fairness, and Confusion
Calls to abolish “not proven” intensified in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Victim advocates pointed out its disproportionate use in rape and sexual assault trials, where convictions were often elusive. Victims who heard “not proven” felt their evidence was doubted or minimized, leaving trauma unresolved.
Legal professionals debated its merits. Some felt it was a safeguard against wrongful conviction, especially when evidence was weak and corroboration absent. Others said it allowed jurors to “sit on the fence,” avoid difficult moral decisions, and indirectly stigmatised the acquitted. Consultation responses, awareness campaigns, and survivor testimony built momentum for reform.
2025 Parliamentary Vote: A Landmark Decision
September 2025 marked a turning point. The Scottish Parliament, after months of heated debate, consultation, and legislative drafting, passed the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill—abolishing the “not proven” verdict by a clear margin. The new law will also:
- Raise the threshold for guilty verdicts in jury trials, requiring two-thirds majority (10 of 15 jurors) for conviction
- Establish a new sexual offences court, providing victims a lifelong right to anonymity and streamlined justice processes
- Create a Victims and Witnesses Commissioner, expanding support and incorporating trauma-informed practice
- Give victims more voice via expanded impact statements
- Mandate parole boards to consider whether killers disclose the location of victims’ bodies—Suzanne’s Law
The legislation followed a government consultation in 2021-2022, which found a majority of legal professionals, including High Court judges, favored simplification and reform.
Debating the Reform: Arguments For and Against
In Favor
- Clarity and fairness: Two verdicts bring Scottish law in line with international standards; victims, accused, and jurors face less ambiguity.
- Justice for victims: Research showed “not proven” was overused in sexual crimes, contributing to low conviction rates and survivor distress.
- Modernization: Scotland embraces a justice system that prioritizes compassion, support, and transparency.
Concerns
- Safeguards for the accused: Many in the legal profession, especially the Law Society of Scotland, warn the loss of “not proven” removes an additional safety net against wrongful convictions.
- Uncharted territory: With the threshold for guilty verdicts raised, some fear juries will convict despite sizable doubts. There is concern about convicting a person even if several jurors remain unconvinced.
The Jury System: Changing the Threshold for Conviction
One of the most consequential reforms accompanying abolition is the new requirement for a two-thirds majority (10 out of 15 jurors) for conviction, replacing the previous simple majority. This aims to balance the risk of wrongful conviction against improved clarity, but has prompted legal debate: in most countries with only two verdicts, near-unanimity is required for guilty verdicts.
Legal scholars warn that the new system could see convictions with substantial dissent, challenging international norms and potentially increasing appeals.
Sexual Offences Courts and Victim Advocacy
The reform package fundamentally changes justice for survivors of sexual offences. Dedicated courts, lifelong anonymity protections, and expanded victim impact statement provisions mark a cultural shift toward trauma-informed justice. For years, campaigners argued that Scotland’s criminal justice system was failing survivors—especially with “not proven” overused in rape cases. The new regime pledges to support, protect, and empower those affected by crime.
Abandoning Juryless Rape Trials: Political Compromise
Original drafts of the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill included proposals for judge-only rape trials, inspired by critiques of jury bias. After extensive outcry from judges, lawyers, and civil liberty groups, this plan was abandoned. The final bill retains jury trials but raises the conviction threshold—a solution with both defenders and detractors.
Legacy of “Not Proven”: High-Profile Cases and Social Impact
“Not proven” has featured in numerous headline cases, often drawing attention to its limitations and social consequences. Families of victims lamented verdicts that seemed to deny closure, while accused individuals who avoided conviction sometimes lived under a cloud of unofficial suspicion. The verdict’s abolition is viewed by many as a step toward healing and justice.
Responses from Victims’ Advocates and Legal Professionals
Victim groups, including Rape Crisis Scotland, welcomed the reforms as long overdue. Survivors stressed that “not proven” left them feeling their testimony was discounted, fueling anxiety and distrust. Legal groups remain divided, emphasizing the need to monitor miscarriages of justice and ensure new safeguards.
The Law Society of Scotland and other professional groups continue lobbying for further study, ongoing training for jurors, and vigilance regarding wrongful convictions.
Parliamentary and Political Reactions
The bill received broad but not unanimous support. The Scottish National Party (SNP) led the charge, joined by the Scottish Greens. Conservative MSPs supported some provisions, notably the abolition of “not proven,” but criticized the bill as missing opportunities for deeper reform.
Justice Secretary Angela Constance termed it “historic legislation,” promising that “victims will be heard, supported, protected and treated with compassion.” Critics want further changes, arguing the bill should go farther to balance victim support with fairness for the accused.
International Comparisons: Scotland and World Legal Systems
Most international legal systems allow only two verdicts. The abolition brings Scotland in line with England, Wales, Europe, and the US, catalyzing discussion about best practices in juror decision-making, victim support, and defendant rights. The two-thirds conviction rule, however, remains more lenient than the near-unanimity required in other jurisdictions.
Future Challenges: Monitoring, Training, and Reform
The success of these reforms will depend on rigorous monitoring. Legal researchers, advocacy organizations, and government agencies must track conviction rates, appeals, and victim satisfaction under the new system. Ongoing training for jurors, lawyers, and judges will support the shift in culture and provide data for future legislation.
Conclusion: Toward a Fairer Scottish Justice System
Scotland’s abolition of the “not proven” verdict is more than a change in courtroom terminology—it is a transformation of legal culture. By discarding ambiguity, investing in victim support, and modernizing trial rules, the nation is taking bold steps toward fairness, clarity, and international best practice. Debates over thresholds, safeguards, and survivor rights will continue, keeping the future of Scottish justice a living dialogue.
As this landmark reform unfolds, courts, communities, and political leaders must work together to ensure the ideals of justice—truth, compassion, and protection—move ever closer to reality.