On September 17, 2025, a centuries-old feature of Scotland’s justice system was finally consigned to the history books. After years of heated debate, emotional testimony, and relentless campaigning by victims and their families, the Scottish Parliament voted to abolish the not proven verdict through the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill. The move, which has dominated headlines across Scotland’s newspapers, marks a seismic shift in the way criminal trials will be conducted north of the border—and it’s already sparking passionate responses from all corners of the justice community.
For more than 300 years, Scottish juries have had three options when it came time to deliver their verdict: guilty, not guilty, or not proven. The last of these, unique in the world, has always been a source of confusion and controversy. While its legal effect was the same as not guilty—acquittal, and the presumption of innocence—the not proven verdict was often seen as a compromise, a way for jurors to express doubt without fully exonerating the accused. Victims and campaigners, however, have long argued that it allowed the guilty to walk free and denied closure to those seeking justice.
On the day of the vote, the Scottish Parliament’s public gallery was filled with people who had waited decades for this moment. Among them was Joe Duffy, whose daughter Amanda was murdered over thirty years ago. The man accused of her killing, Francis Auld, walked free after being acquitted on a not proven verdict—a decision that haunted the Duffy family and became a rallying point for reform. "I’m absolutely delighted for everybody involved in the criminal justice process, but especially for ourselves as we campaigned for so long. Did I ever see it happening? I was hoping it would happen in my lifetime. Thankfully I’ve got there and hopefully it helps other people," Joe told the Daily Record.
The abolition comes as part of a wider package of reforms. From now on, Scottish juries in criminal trials will no longer have three options, but just two: guilty or not guilty. The bill also raises the bar for conviction, increasing the required majority from a simple eight out of fifteen jurors to ten out of fifteen. Proposals to reduce jury size from fifteen to twelve were ultimately rejected, as were controversial plans for juryless rape trials following criticism from legal professionals and judges.
Justice Secretary Angela Constance praised campaigners and families who fought for what she called a “long overdue” change. In an interview with the Daily Record, she said, "There is now hard evidence that not proven had allowed juries to compromise and deliver a verdict the public do not trust." She described the reforms as being "in the interests of justice," promising that the abolition would be swift and a top priority.
The not proven verdict’s origins stretch back to the 17th century, and for generations, its precise meaning has eluded even legal experts. As Joe Duffy put it, "Then, we had no idea what not proven actually meant. I don’t think anybody still does know what it means. So that was part of the reason we wanted it abolished. There was a middle ground that shouldn’t be there. You’re either guilty or not guilty. You deserve that. One or the other."
Others who have felt the verdict’s sting echoed his sentiments. Stewart Handling, whose daughter Grace died after taking an ecstasy pill supplied by a man acquitted on a not proven verdict, called the day "bittersweet." He told the Daily Record, "It doesn’t bring Grace back, but it’s in the interest of all victims irrespective of what the case is. There’s a much greater chance of justice." He added, "I think not proven was a safeguard, but that safeguard became a hurdle for justice where a lot of people who are guilty are potentially found not proven."
The statistics underscore the campaigners’ concerns. According to BBC and Rape Crisis Scotland, in 2022-23, only 48% of rape and attempted rape cases resulted in convictions, the lowest rate for any type of crime. Not proven verdicts accounted for a staggering 61% of acquittals in such cases, compared to just 22% for all criminal offences. Miss M, a rape survivor who saw the man she accused acquitted on a not proven verdict, has been a tireless campaigner for change. Speaking after the vote, she said, "When I started this campaign to remove the not proven verdict alongside Rape Crisis Scotland, the dream was just not to remove the not proven verdict but to highlight how misunderstood and damaging it was. Today the removal of the not proven verdict has given survivors and their families back their voice."
Supporters of the reforms point to these numbers as proof that the old system was letting too many offenders slip through the cracks. Sandy Brindley, chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, praised campaigners like Miss M and welcomed the creation of a new sexual offences court, saying she hoped it would "streamline the management of sexual offences, reduce trauma for survivors of sexual violence, and help cut the unnecessary delays in the court system." She added, "Conviction rates are already terrifyingly low and many police reports don’t make it to court. An increased jury majority will undoubtedly make survivors’ fight for justice even harder."
But not everyone is convinced the changes will deliver justice. The Law Society of Scotland has been vocal in its opposition, warning that the reforms could increase the risk of miscarriages of justice. Stuart Munro, convener of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, said, "The fundamental purpose of any criminal justice system is to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. We’re moving from a system with a proven track record of achieving that outcome to one which is entirely untested and does not exist in any equivalent legal system anywhere in the world." He pointed out that while most countries with two-verdict systems require a unanimous or near-unanimous jury to convict, Scotland will now allow convictions even if five out of fifteen jurors have doubts. "We have significant concerns about following other systems in one respect, but not in terms of the jury majority required for a conviction," he said.
Proponents of the bill counter that the changes are necessary to restore public confidence in the justice system and to ensure that victims are not left in limbo by an ambiguous verdict. The reforms also embed trauma-informed practices across the legal process, improve the Victim Notification Scheme, and establish an independent Victims and Witnesses Commissioner to champion victims’ rights.
The road to this moment has been long and fraught with setbacks. Joe Duffy recalled, "I’ve seen an awful lot of false dawns, that this was going to happen, that that was going to happen. In the campaign we produced hundreds of thousands of signatures and petitions and it didn’t go ahead so for this to be going away today, I’m absolutely delighted." For families like the Duffys and campaigners like Miss M, the abolition of not proven is more than a legal technicality—it’s a long-awaited recognition of their struggle and a step toward a justice system that puts victims at its heart.
As Scotland’s newspapers splash the news across their front pages, the country finds itself at a crossroads: embracing a new era in criminal justice, even as the debate over the best way to balance the rights of the accused and the needs of victims rages on. Only time will tell how these historic changes will reshape the pursuit of justice in Scotland, but for many, the hope is that a clearer, fairer system has finally arrived.
