Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is probably another sentence that goes with that that is about the interpretation of a not proven verdict. In the circumstances in which the Crown has been deemed to have failed to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury is unconvinced that the individual is not guilty, does it suggest that they are somehow—forgive my colloquialism—sort of guilty?

A judge, however, in answering a jury’s question about the difference between the two verdicts will say, “There is no difference”. Am I correct?

Mr Murray, the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association’s written submission states:

“a juror may think that the accused is guilty but be unsure as to whether or not the Crown have proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is this lack of assurance as to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, alongside a belief that an accused may not be innocent, that requires there to be a third option.”

That suggests to me that there is some residual doubt about the accused, given that—to go back to the point that Mr Renucci made a moment ago—a judge, in answering the question, will say that there are two types of acquittal.

Is the point that it leaves people feeling differently about the verdict accepted?

Thank you for that. It was very helpful.

I will now put to you some of the questions that I put to the panel of legal professionals about the perception of the not proven verdict. If I remember correctly, the words of the faculty representative were that it is “a measured means of acquittal”. From the Crown’s point of view, is the judgment that matters to you whether the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt?

I understand that, but the point that I am getting at is this: what is the definition of “not proven” in the type of circumstances that we are talking about, where the jury is not convinced that the Crown has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but where there is space for there to be a measured means of acquittal? That sounds to me like a conditional acquittal. Mr Renucci, you just put on the record a point about how, if a jury asks about the difference between not proven and not guilty, a judge will say that there is no difference. The faculty’s written submission, however, suggests that there is a bit of a difference.

Do you take my point, Mr Murray, that one will have a fundamentally different view of the outcome when the verdict is guilty or not guilty versus one of not proven?

Stuart Munro made a comment about sexual offences having a higher conviction rate in England than in Scotland. Why do you think that is the case?

It would be helpful to have whatever information you can share with us, because it begs the question—obviously there is no not proven verdict in England—of the extent to which the absence of that factor contributes to the difference, if the numbers that you have just given us are correct. I appreciate that you will supply the numbers later. There is a material difference between 50 per cent and 71 per cent, if that is the case. It strikes me that whatever is driving that needs to be explored. What is the potential significance of removing the option of the not proven verdict in Scotland? We have to understand the implications of any move to remove such a provision.