Scotland’s centuries-old legal tradition is on the cusp of a major shake-up as the Scottish Parliament moves forward with the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. At the heart of this sweeping legislation is the abolition of the controversial not proven verdict, a unique facet of Scots law that has long perplexed jurors, the public, and legal professionals alike. The bill, which faces its final parliamentary hurdle this week, is expected to pass with support from the Scottish Greens, despite the Scottish National Party (SNP) lacking a majority at Holyrood.
Justice Secretary Angela Constance has been a vocal proponent of the reforms, insisting that scrapping the not proven verdict will lead to "a clearer and more transparent system." According to BBC, Constance emphasized that the measure is just one part of a much broader effort to overhaul the justice system, aiming to improve protections for victims and witnesses while also safeguarding the rights of the accused.
Scotland stands alone as the only country where juries can return not just guilty or not guilty verdicts, but also not proven. The result of a not proven verdict is identical to that of not guilty—the accused is acquitted and remains innocent in the eyes of the law. However, critics argue that it creates confusion, can stigmatize the accused by suggesting a lack of full exoneration, and leaves victims without closure. The verdict has also been said to be used disproportionately in rape cases, fueling calls for its abolition from campaigners against violence towards women.
Evidence cited by the Scottish Government shows that both jurors and the general public widely misunderstand the not proven verdict. A study published in 2019 found that removing the option might incline more jurors toward guilty verdicts in finely balanced trials. The same research highlighted inconsistent interpretations of what not proven actually means and how it differs from not guilty, further fueling the argument for reform.
The government’s bill doesn’t stop at abolishing not proven. It also proposes raising the bar for guilty verdicts in criminal trials. Currently, a simple majority—at least eight out of 15 jurors—is enough for a conviction. The new threshold will require a two-thirds majority, a move intended to address concerns from defense lawyers that the loss of not proven could make it harder for their clients to avoid conviction. On the flip side, prosecutors worry that the higher bar could make securing convictions more difficult, especially in cases that already present significant evidentiary challenges.
The reforms have not been without controversy. The government initially floated the idea of juryless rape trials, a proposal quickly abandoned after vocal criticism from lawyers and judges. More than 160 amendments to the bill have been tabled, and the debate has stretched into late-night parliamentary sessions. The final vote is scheduled for Wednesday, September 17, 2025, and all eyes are on Holyrood to see how the chips will fall.
Announcing her party’s support for the bill, Scottish Greens justice spokesperson Maggie Chapman stated, "It is long past time to end not proven and is a necessary step for a clearer, more humane and modern justice system." According to The Scotsman, Chapman’s remarks reflect the growing consensus that, while the not proven verdict may have once offered extra protection to the accused, it now does more harm than good.
But not everyone is convinced the bill goes far enough. Opposition parties, including the Scottish Conservatives, have called for more ambitious reforms. Russell Findlay, the party’s justice lead, argued that without additional changes, the bill would not "meaningfully change the justice system," labeling it "a victims' law in name only." Still, some of Findlay’s proposed amendments have found support from Constance, such as requiring that victims be informed when plea deals are struck between prosecutors and defense lawyers. Other amendments, like a call for a grooming gangs inquiry, have not been backed by ministers.
The bill’s scope is broad, reflecting the government’s desire to tackle multiple issues at once. It paves the way for the creation of a special sexual offences court, designed to address case backlogs and improve the experience of complainers—Scotland’s term for crime victims—in the justice system. Judges and legal staff in this court would receive "trauma-informed" training to better support those involved in sexual offence cases. There are also plans to establish a victims and witnesses commissioner, who will be responsible for upholding standards of care and answering directly to parliament.
Other notable provisions include an automatic lifelong right to anonymity for victims of sexual and certain other offences, automatic independent legal representation for complainers when their sexual history or character is at issue, and new requirements for the parole board to consider whether a convicted murderer or killer has refused to reveal the location of a victim’s body. The bill also aims to make it easier for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence in civil cases, such as via video link or from behind a screen, and to reform the Victim Notification Scheme to ensure it operates in a "more trauma-informed and person-centred way."
Ministers have signaled openness to further amendments, including making permanent a trial scheme that gives victims of rape and serious sexual assault free access to court transcripts, and widening the opportunity for victims to make statements about the impact of crime at sentencing. A proposed victims’ charter, championed by Liberal Democrat Jamie Greene, would set out victims’ rights and expectations within the justice system.
Scottish Greens and Labour MSPs have also introduced amendments to improve court management of domestic abuse cases and to seek reassurances over measures aimed at enhancing the experiences of victims and witnesses, particularly women. Ministers are expected to support these changes, reflecting a broad, if sometimes uneasy, parliamentary consensus around the need for reform.
The push for these changes comes against a backdrop of persistently low prosecution and conviction rates in sexual offence cases. According to BBC, in 2022-23, Police Scotland recorded 2,529 rapes and attempted rapes, but only 372 cases made it to court. Of those, just 48% resulted in conviction, compared to more than 80% for all crimes. Last year, after a request from Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain, Scotland’s top law officer, judges overturned an 87-year-old rule requiring corroboration in rape and sexual abuse cases. Now, distress shown by a complainer at the time of an attack can be used as evidence, potentially making it easier for cases to reach court.
As the Scottish legal system stands on the brink of its most significant transformation in generations, the debate over the not proven verdict and related reforms has highlighted the complexities of balancing the rights of the accused with the need to support victims and restore public confidence in justice. The outcome of this week’s vote will set the tone for the future of Scotland’s courts and, perhaps, offer a model for other jurisdictions wrestling with similar challenges.
Whatever happens, Scotland’s justice system is about to step into a new era—one shaped by fierce debate, long-needed reforms, and the voices of those determined to make the law work better for everyone it serves.
