Veto verdict

SIR Walter Scott called it “that Bastard verdict”.

Now, the unusual not proven option in Scottish courts is back in the dock.

Research shows it is confusing to jurors, it baffles the public and it leaves a question mark hanging over an acquitted person. It’s not a dry, technical point. In today’s Record, the family of murdered Amanda Duffy reveal what it meant to them.

The man on trial for Duffy’s death was freed after a not proven verdict.

Francis Auld lived another 25 years in freedom after the controversial acquittal. A civil case found he was responsible.

Scotland’s criminal justice system is crying out for simplicity. It’s time to ditch the third verdict.

BY ANNIE BROWN a.brown@dailyrecord.co.uk THE DAD of murder victim Amanda Duffy has renewed calls for an end to the not proven verdict which set her killer free. Joe Duffy was speaking after results from the UK’s largest study of juries showed confusion surrounds Scotland’s controversial third verdict. The study set up 64 mock juries made up of 863 individuals and showed them two finelybalanced trials – one an assault and the other a rape case. Findings suggested some jurors thought not proven should be the verdict if they felt the accused was probably guilty but there were failures in the prosecution case. The body of Amanda, who was 19, was found on waste ground in Hamilton in 1992. Her killer Francis Auld stood trial but the case was found not proven by a jury, despite overwhelming evidence against him.

Last night, Joe said: “I would be delighted if the research led to an end to a third verdict which has no place in our justice system. We would support a move to scrap it.

“On an emotional level, if it was scrapped, at least something positive would have come out of all of this. It can’t help us now but it would benefit others who find themselves in the same position as we were. “

An attempt to secure a retrial failed in 2016 and Amanda’s family fought a tireless campaign for the verdict to be abolished. Auld died from cancer in 2017. The legal implications of a not proven verdict are the same as with a not guilty verdict, with the accused acquitted.

But the study found some jurors held the belief that the accused can be automatically retried following a not proven verdict.

Only half the juries had not proven verdicts available to them but, when they did, more individual jurors favoured acquittal.

Other misconceptions which arose during mock deliberations included a belief that the accused is required to prove his innocence and a belief that self-defence is not a legitimate defence, which it is.

Jurors also expressed the view that there is a lingering stigma attached to a verdict of not proven.

However, there was also opinion that the not proven verdict was a “cop out”.

Only 51 per cent of all jurors felt that they “fully understood” the not proven verdict.

In nine of the 32 three-verdict juries, jurors stated they did not understand the not proven verdict or asked others.

The view that not proven is the most appropriate verdict if jurors think the accused is guilty but the standard of proof has not been met was more common in the mock rape trial than assault – 75 per cent compared to 64 per cent.

Rape Crisis Scotland has campaigned to scrap the verdict as it is used almost twice as often in cases of rape and attempted rape as other crimes.

Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf said he will now consult with legal professionals and the wider public to consider the findings.

He said: “In particular, we will now engage in serious discussions on all of these findings including whether we should move to a two-verdicts system.

“My mind is open and we will not pre-judge the outcome of those conversations.”