After centuries of legal tradition, Scotland is poised to overhaul one of its most distinctive—and controversial—features of its justice system. On September 17, 2025, Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) voted decisively to abolish the country’s unique “not proven” verdict, marking a watershed moment in the nation’s legal history. The move, enshrined in the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, passed by a margin of 71 to 46 votes, with one abstention, after a marathon debate spanning more than 160 amendments over two days, according to BBC and STV News.
The “not proven” verdict, which has existed in Scottish courts since the 17th century, allowed juries to acquit an accused person without declaring them wholly innocent. In practice, it carried the same legal effect as a “not guilty” verdict—acquittal and presumed innocence—but its ambiguity has long been a source of confusion and controversy. Critics argued that it failed to provide closure for victims and left a lingering stigma on the accused, while some legal experts maintained it served as a safeguard against wrongful convictions.
Justice Secretary Angela Constance hailed the passage of the bill as a transformative step for Scotland’s justice system. “This historic legislation will put victims and witnesses at the heart of a modern and fair justice system,” Constance told Sky News. She emphasized that the reforms were shaped by the input of victims, survivors, their families, and support organizations, adding, “By changing culture, process and practice across the system, it will help to ensure victims are heard, supported, protected and treated with compassion, while the rights of the accused will continue to be safeguarded.”
The bill’s reach extends far beyond the abolition of the not proven verdict. It introduces a raft of changes aimed at reforming how justice is delivered in Scotland. Most notably, it raises the threshold for conviction in jury trials: instead of a simple majority of eight out of fifteen jurors, a two-thirds majority—ten jurors—will now be required to return a guilty verdict. This shift, as reported by BBC, is intended to address concerns from defense lawyers who worried that eliminating the not proven verdict could tip finely balanced cases toward more convictions.
Other reforms in the bill include the establishment of a specialist sexual offences court, which will provide trauma-informed training for judges and legal staff, and guarantee victims of sexual offences a lifelong right to anonymity. The legislation also creates a new, independent Victims and Witnesses Commissioner, whose office will be answerable to parliament and charged with upholding standards of care for those affected by crime. Additionally, the ability of victims to make impact statements in court will be expanded, and a pilot scheme granting victims of rape and serious sexual assault free access to court transcripts will become permanent.
One particularly emotional aspect of the bill is the implementation of Suzanne’s Law, named after Suzanne Pilley, who was murdered in 2010 and whose killer never revealed the location of her body. The new law requires the Parole Board to consider, when deciding on a prisoner’s release, whether a convicted killer has disclosed the whereabouts of their victim’s remains. Previously, the board “may” have taken such refusals into account; now, they “must.” According to Sky News, this change was championed by Victim Support Scotland (VSS) in partnership with the families of victims Arlene Fraser and Suzanne Pilley. Carol Gillies, sister of Arlene Fraser, and Gail Fairgrieve, sister of Suzanne Pilley, said, “We have done everything possible to make this change to parole in memory of Arlene and Suzanne, and for other people who have lost their lives in such a horrific way. For our families, the passing of this act and the change to parole are momentous.”
Supporters of the bill, including VSS chief executive Kate Wallace, described its passage as a “momentous occasion” for Scotland’s criminal justice system. “It marks a significant step towards creating a system that considers and prioritises the needs of people impacted by crime,” Wallace told BBC. Rape Crisis chief executive Sandy Brindley also welcomed the removal of the not proven verdict, stating it had “let down” victims in the past. However, she voiced “serious concerns” about the raised threshold for jury majorities, warning it could negatively affect rape and sexual offence cases.
Despite broad cross-party agreement on scrapping the not proven verdict, the bill was not without its detractors. The Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour ultimately voted against the legislation, though both parties supported the core aim of abolishing the controversial verdict. The Tories, in particular, argued that the bill failed to go far enough in supporting victims. They had pushed for a Scotland-only inquiry into grooming gangs, enhanced notification rights for victims when prosecution decisions or plea deals were made, and a stricter version of Suzanne’s Law—one that would have ensured “no body, no release.” Conservative MSP Liam Kerr was blunt in his criticism: “This half-baked bill sells the victims of crime desperately short. By ignoring many of the key demands of victims’ groups, the SNP have squandered the chance for a long overdue rebalancing of Scotland’s justice system.”
Labour MSPs raised their own concerns about the scope and complexity of the bill, objecting to what they saw as the bundling of too many wide-ranging measures into a single piece of legislation with insufficient time for scrutiny. Labour justice spokeswoman Pauline McNeill expressed reservations about moving serious sexual offence cases out of the high court and into a specialist court, while her colleague Katy Clark described the bill as “far too large.”
Legal professionals also weighed in with caution. The Law Society of Scotland supported some elements, such as the creation of a victims commissioner and lifelong anonymity for sexual offence victims, but warned that “untested” changes could raise the risk of miscarriages of justice. Stuart Munro, convener of the society’s Criminal Law Committee, highlighted a major concern: “Every legal system with a two-verdict system requires a unanimous or near unanimous jury to convict, whereas Scotland will now have a system where a person can be convicted despite five members of the jury having significant doubts about their guilt.”
While ministers have not set a firm timetable for implementing the new measures, the changes will be introduced in phases following Royal Assent. Training for judges and court staff is expected to take time, and the creation of new institutions such as the sexual offences court and the victims commissioner’s office could take even longer.
As Scotland embarks on this ambitious journey to modernize its justice system, the coming months and years will reveal whether these reforms deliver on their promise of greater compassion, fairness, and support for those most deeply affected by crime.
