Proven success

I agree with Colin Oliver (Letters, 9 April) that the Not Proven verdict is a sensible one, but not for the reason he gave. He said that, in contrast to the Guilty verdict, it should mean that the person could at no point be free and should always expect to be retried. The fact is that the Not Proven verdict has the same effect in law as a verdict of Guilty. In both cases the person is free of the double jeopardy of being tried again for the same offence, except in the very exceptional case where new and compelling evidence is found which was not, and could not, have been made available at his trial. It does have a value, however, which distinguishes it from the verdict of Not Guilty. Juries cannot give reasons for their decision. But the Not Proven verdict does enable a jury to indicate, for example, that they wish to make it clear that they believed the complainer but were unable to convict according to the law because their evidence was not corroborated. That can happen in a trial for sexual offences where the jury finds the accused not guilty on all other charges which were brought to corroborate the main charge on the indictment. In such a case a jury may well feel that, despite the fact that Not Proven has the same effect in law, it would not be right to give the accused the benefit of a Not guilty verdict on that charge.

Like Colin Oliver, therefore, I suggest that those who argue for the Not Proven verdict to be abolished should reflect on its advantages.

DAVID HOPE India Street, Edinburgh