This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37315936

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
'Logical' to scrap not guilty verdict, says Scots law expert 'Logical' to keep not proven verdict, says Scots law expert
(5 days later)
A Scots law expert has said it is "logical" to drop the not guilty verdict in criminal cases and keep the not proven option. A Scots law expert has said the not proven verdict is the "logical" one to keep in criminal cases and there is an argument for dropping not guilty.
Douglas Thomson, of the Law Society's Criminal Law Committee, was responding to the Scottish government's plans to study how juries make their decisions.Douglas Thomson, of the Law Society's Criminal Law Committee, was responding to the Scottish government's plans to study how juries make their decisions.
There are currently three verdicts - guilty, not guilty and not proven.There are currently three verdicts - guilty, not guilty and not proven.
Mr Thomson said if the Crown failed to prove a case the logical verdict was not proven, rather than not guilty.Mr Thomson said if the Crown failed to prove a case the logical verdict was not proven, rather than not guilty.
Earlier this year, Holyrood's justice committee concluded Scotland's not proven verdict was on "borrowed time" and may not serve any useful purpose.Earlier this year, Holyrood's justice committee concluded Scotland's not proven verdict was on "borrowed time" and may not serve any useful purpose.
Mr Thomson acknowledged that there "was not unanimity about the value of the three verdict system".Mr Thomson acknowledged that there "was not unanimity about the value of the three verdict system".
He told the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme that within the profession, there is a "fairly solid body of support" that what a jury is being asked to do is decide whether the public prosecutor has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.He told the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme that within the profession, there is a "fairly solid body of support" that what a jury is being asked to do is decide whether the public prosecutor has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
'Appropriate verdict of acquittal''Appropriate verdict of acquittal'
He added: "Therefore, the logical verdict if the Crown fails to discharge the requirement to prove the case is a verdict of not proven."He added: "Therefore, the logical verdict if the Crown fails to discharge the requirement to prove the case is a verdict of not proven."
But, he said, the difficulty with dropping the not guilty verdict is that it is the "appropriate verdict of acquittal" recognised across the rest of the English-speaking world.But, he said, the difficulty with dropping the not guilty verdict is that it is the "appropriate verdict of acquittal" recognised across the rest of the English-speaking world.
What is the not proven verdict?What is the not proven verdict?
On Tuesday, the Scottish government set out its plans for the next year in its programme for government.On Tuesday, the Scottish government set out its plans for the next year in its programme for government.
One item was on justice reform. It said it wanted to commission "independent jury research to consider the dynamics of decision-making by juries, including the current jury majority and three verdict system, helping to inform future proposals for the reform of the criminal justice system".One item was on justice reform. It said it wanted to commission "independent jury research to consider the dynamics of decision-making by juries, including the current jury majority and three verdict system, helping to inform future proposals for the reform of the criminal justice system".
Mr Thomson supported the government's plan to commission research, but said there were questions about how research should be carried out.Mr Thomson supported the government's plan to commission research, but said there were questions about how research should be carried out.
'Unique system''Unique system'
He added: "We have to recognise that Scotland has a unique system within the English-speaking, common law world.He added: "We have to recognise that Scotland has a unique system within the English-speaking, common law world.
"We are the only country that has 15 jurors, three verdicts and where a simple majority of eight out of 15 is sufficient for a guilty verdict."We are the only country that has 15 jurors, three verdicts and where a simple majority of eight out of 15 is sufficient for a guilty verdict.
"We don't know if juries are reaching verdicts for the proper reasons, because there are impediments at the present time to carrying out jury research.""We don't know if juries are reaching verdicts for the proper reasons, because there are impediments at the present time to carrying out jury research."
He said: "There are requirements under the Contempt of Court Act which preclude jurors from being individually asked questions about how they reached their deliberations.He said: "There are requirements under the Contempt of Court Act which preclude jurors from being individually asked questions about how they reached their deliberations.
"There are perhaps very good reasons why individual jurors can't be questioned about how they reached a verdict in a jury room. It has been considered in the recent past that there may be methods by which academics and researchers can carry out research and avoid breaching the terms of the Contempt of Court legislation by asking jurors questions like: Did they understand the directions they were given by the judge?, Did they understand the verdict system?, Did they understand what beyond a reasonable doubt meant?""There are perhaps very good reasons why individual jurors can't be questioned about how they reached a verdict in a jury room. It has been considered in the recent past that there may be methods by which academics and researchers can carry out research and avoid breaching the terms of the Contempt of Court legislation by asking jurors questions like: Did they understand the directions they were given by the judge?, Did they understand the verdict system?, Did they understand what beyond a reasonable doubt meant?"
"Most lawyers understand how jurors reach a verdict in most cases... but there is always a concern, potentially, that jurors might not have fully understood everything they've been told."Most lawyers understand how jurors reach a verdict in most cases... but there is always a concern, potentially, that jurors might not have fully understood everything they've been told.
"Unlike England, for example, there is no requirement to introduce the case to the jury - it's only at the end of the case that jurors are given direction on the law."Unlike England, for example, there is no requirement to introduce the case to the jury - it's only at the end of the case that jurors are given direction on the law.
"There is some suggestion that there would be a benefit in judges giving more detailed directions both at the start and as the case continues as to how the procedure operates.""There is some suggestion that there would be a benefit in judges giving more detailed directions both at the start and as the case continues as to how the procedure operates."