The not proven verdict and related reforms

The system works well and removing not proven would not increase sex crime convictions as england has similar low convition rate for these very difficult cases.

This would be an accurate description of what a jury is being asked to decide.

The jury and others should be told, the question is did the crown show ie prove beyond doubt that the accused commited the offence. If there was lack of evidence or clarity or other doubt the jury has no choice but to provide a not proven verdict.

I feel in very close cases where contradictory evidence is presented and it can be seen the accused was somewhat involved in the crime but the crown cannot definativly provide a piece of proof that implictes the accused then the not proven verdict allows the jury to reach an agreement. It should mean the crown is encouraged to present strong evidence and not merely just "give it a go" in the hope of a result.

The accused has no record of verdicts to answer to. If at job interview or some such they were asked about a court case against them they can truthfully declare there was no conviction. That would be a statement of fact.

The victims etc should have it explained to them by the judge or sheriff or court staff, that not proven is a legitimate verdict for a jury to return and the crown was unable in this instance to provide a strong enough case to prove the complainers case irrespective of their strongly held belief.

Having been on a jury i did not recognise the supposed disadvantages which were outlined regarding participation or changing of minds . A quite or shy person will still be that even if there were only 6 or 8 participnts. Also people with strongly held opinions or beliefs will always vigorously defend their corner and be prepared to speak to it if encouraged.

This is easily understood , it would mean jurors whom have odd notions or misunderstand their role or the evidence would be less likely to bring about a wrongful conviction.

If the correct amount of jurors cannot be persuaded to accept the crowns case it should be accepted that the case against the accused was not strong enough for a conviction.

Corroboration gives at least a level of defence against malicous prosecuction or wrongful prosecuction. Eg a doctor will know his sloppy examination may be noticed by the other one , similarly scientists or expert witnesses can be challenged by the evidence of a second such expert retesting their results. The post office case recently has shown the need for corroboration, all the post masters were prosecuted only on the evidence provided by a now discredited computer. The corroboration of an accountant or a computer expert may have returned a differant conclusion. There are many cases recently in england where rape trials believed only the victim and after the accused went to jail it was shown via mobile phone evidence the accused was the real victim of a malicous act. In organised crime cases it may be possible for individuals to be pressured to take the blame for crimes they did not commit if corroboration was not required. Finally corroboration provides a small level of protection against corrupt police and such like.

See above , corroboration is an essential element of our system . Instead of trying to get rid of it we should be promoting its positive benifits to other judicial systems around the world. We should be positively boasting about it.

See both aboves , corroboration is a conerstone the number one foundation of the system, it is as essential as the judge in the system.

If it is reformed it should be to an even higher standard, this to reduce the potential for wrongful conviction and to eliminate corrupt or malicous actors in the system.

The safeguards would need to be at least as onerous to achieve, i cannot imagine what these would be however they would have to be well written, simple to understand and strictly enforced with considerable penalties for overuling them.

It should be a simple matter to explain via a video or booklet what a straightforward concept like corroboration is in a legal context. The sheriff or prosecution or defence lawyers could always take time to reinforce the message if they suspected the jury was in difficulty grasping any concepts which they put forward.

I do not really understand this question. Surely getting put to jail for a crime you did not commit as a result of an unfair trial is an awful experience regardless of your circumstances.

Going to jail or being convicted of a crime you did not commit is surely a major blow to your rights to conduct your life.

Again i do not really understand this question, is going to jail or being convicted wrongfully easier on an island or possibly more difficult i dont know. I cannot see how the environment can possibly be impacted by reducing jury numbers for example.