The not proven verdict and related reforms

i) The current system works and results in conviction rates similar to those found in other western democracies across various crime types.

ii) it is the role of the justice system to investigate and prosecute individuals suspected of having committed an offence in an impartial manner. It is not the role of the justice system to modify itself in order to artificially inflate conviction rates for selected crime types (arguably the real reason behind this proposed reform that is strangely absent from the Justice Minister's foreword given repeated remarks about conviction rates for Group2 offences and domestic violence).

iii) The suggestion that a verdict of 'not proven' is somehow difficult to grasp, is hard to take seriously. It is clear that 'not proven' means the alternative options of 'guilty' and 'not guilty' are not viable to a juror because the case for both was insufficiently compelling. Yet in this proposal we have the repeated suggestion that layperson and legal expert alike cannot grasp this sensationally straightforward and coherent concept.

iv) With a majority verdict tied to a larger jury and the three option outcome we have more scope for avoiding a miscarriage of justice. Decisions by jurors will be taken based on the merits of the case rather than being pressurised during deliberations that are often specifically times to coincide with Friday afternoons to insert a time pressure onto proceedings and make a binary decision they are not comfortable with (instead of 'not proven').

v) by removing 'not proven' you would effectively be stating that with jury trials for the past 10 years that resulted in juries being unconvinced by the prosecutions case, a proportion of these, if the case was re-run, would result in a conviction. So essentially that cases that were substandard should now result in a conviction. I thought the Scottish government's stated aim was to reduce the prison population, not fill it with people who had been convicted on the basis of an insufficient case?

vi) we have a growing number of civil orders available both as disposals and as non-disposal sanctions for a range of offence types. The 'not proven' verdict is a fantastic opportunity to utilise these sanctions. Rather than such civil orders often being issued after limited consideration by the police and Crown, here is a verdict that says a case is not sufficiently strong to merit incarcerating someone, but it is sufficiently strong to consider the individual poses a potential risk that should be mitigated by a civil order.

vi) if the justice system feels unable to provide a detailed definition of 'not proven', this can be easily addressed through ministerial action and legislation. This is absolutely not cause to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

vii) if it is felt 'not proven' stands in the way of re-trials then this can be addressed through ministerial action and legislation.

viii) there appears to be an unsubstantiated assumption in this questionnaire that jurors do not reach 'guilty' and 'not guilty' verdicts for daft reasons that were not those envisaged by the creators of the system.

I note that you are providing me with a third option here with 'other'. One might say it is the 'not proven' of Question 2. Why are you not assuming we are unable to define what 'other's might mean and are therefore unable to make this judgment?

iii) The suggestion that a verdict of 'not proven' is somehow difficult to grasp, is hard to take seriously. It is clear that 'not proven' means the alternative options of 'guilty' and 'not guilty' are not viable to a juror because the case for both was insufficiently compelling. Yet in this proposal we have the repeated suggestion that layperson and legal expert alike cannot grasp this sensationally straightforward and coherent concept.

By removing 'not proven' you would effectively be stating that with jury trials for the past 10 years that resulted in juries being unconvinced by the prosecution's case, a proportion of these, if the case was re-run, would result in a conviction. So essentially that cases that were substandard should now result in a conviction. That is almost the very definition of 'wrongful conviction'.

I thought the Scottish government's stated aim was to reduce the prison population, not fill it with people who had been convicted on the basis of an insufficient case?

Any suggestion this review is not tied to a push to increase conviction rates for selected crime types would be wholly disingenuous.

Stigma is not an appropriate term. The fact is they were not found 'not guilty' by a jury of their peers and both the justice system and public should respond accordingly to that fact in terms of considering their opinion of the individual, retention rules for criminal history, use of civil order, disclosure scheme membership etc.

The trauma to victims and families will be the absence of a 'guilty' verdict and may perhaps be exacerbated by an inability by anyone in a position of authority to explain the extraordinarily simple concept that a prosecution case fell short of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Any fault lies with those in authority failing to explain a straightforward concept, not with the concept itself.

In order to evaluate why there must be change, the alleged shortcomings in a simple majority 15 juror system must be laid out. The case has not been made sufficiently for me to respond.

No. It sounds like you have stumbled across a scenario where 'not proven' would come in handy rather than an I'll judged rush the binary choice of guilty or not guilty (the latter of which may cause undue upset to a complainer and their family).

Corroboration is a protection against miscarriages of justice and a protection against governments with a political agenda to increase conviction rates by hook or by crook.

With the growth in sophisticated and essentially incontroverible DNA evidence alongside a vast swathe of digital evidence connected to personal mobile devices and other technological advancements it has never been easier to obtain strong corroborative evidence of a complainer's statement.

Use of the Moorov doctrine and Howden principle provide further options.

As above. I do not consider the matter of 3 verdicts or 2 verdicts to be an appropriate variable in consideration of corroboration. It is a distinct matter requiring distinct consideration.

As above. I do not consider the matter of an increased jury majority to be an appropriate variable in consideration of corroboration. It is a distinct matter requiring distinct consideration.

N/A. The current system works. There is an absence of miscarriages of justice in Scotland which should be celebrated.

If people involved in the justice system cannot grasp corroboration then that is a capability matter. We should not be making wholesale changes to the justice system off the back of a lack of comprehension by individuals and roles whose job it is to know such things.