‘It’s up to the prosecution to prove a case’

Where a case is found not proven, the accused is acquitted and is innocent in the eyes of the law.

Its origins – almost unique in Scots law – come from early practice in which juries would establish a case proven or not and the judge would then determine guilt.

Not proven is regarded as an additional layer of protection against conviction if a jury has any doubts.

Critics have long-argued it causes confusion among juries and stigmatises the accused in the eyes of the public.

Holyrood’s justice committee has stated the verdict is on “borrowed time”.

Brian McConnachie QC, a former president of the Criminal Bar Association, said the choice between the not guilty and not proven verdicts for juries “is simply a way of them indicating to the court which they feel best represents their verdict in the case.”

He said: “If they choose not proven rather than not guilty it reflects the fact simply that they are not satisfied the prosecution have proved their case.”

Advocate Derek Ogg said the verdicts should be proven and not proven but does not believe the current system is “demonstrably broken”.

He said juries must decide whether a charge is “proved beyond reasonable doubt.

“That really focuses what the jury’s job is”