The Scottish government has published new legislation which, if passed, would scrap Scotland’s not proven verdict—which dates back to the 17th century—and would also allow for no-jury trials in some rape cases.
But, in a departure from the system in England and Wales, it would allow for guilty verdicts to be delivered if just eight out of the 12 jurors agreed. In England and Wales the minimum number for a majority verdict is 10.
Rape Crisis Scotland say not proven makes up 44 percent of rape and attempted rape acquittals, compared with 20 percent for all crimes and offences.
Speaking on the BBC’s “Good Morning Scotland” programme on Wednesday, Ross said jurors should be trusted in Scotland and he added, “I work with prosecutors every day, I don’t hear them saying that they’re concerned about the conviction rate.”
On the same programme the Chief Executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, Sandy Brindley, welcomed the scrapping of the not proven verdict and said she had “no doubt that guilty men are walking free.”
Brindley said the changes were a “really positive development.”
The Scottish government said a new specialist sexual offences court would be created and ministers would have the power to carry out a pilot of rape trials without juries and with the verdict being given by a single judge.
In a statement the Scottish government said the legislation includes a provision to allow for the “enabling a pilot of single judge trials for cases of rape and attempted rape to take place to gather evidence on their effectiveness.”
Scotland’s Justice Secretary Angela Constance said the new legislation would put victims and witnesses at the heart of the justice system.
‘Landmark Legislation’
Constance said: “This landmark legislation is among the most significant since devolution and will ensure fairness is cemented into the bedrock of Scotland’s modern-day justice system.”She said the reforms had been designed following consultation with rape survivors, victims, and their families, and would make Scottish courts more sensitive and less traumatic.
Constance said: “This government has been clear we must take action to improve the experience of those who suffer sexual abuse. The majority are women, who must be supported to have trust and confidence that the processes of justice will serve their needs, allow them to give their best evidence and support them in their recovery.”
Last year, then-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon committed her government to abolishing the option of not proven for a jury.
“This will be a change of truly historic significance in Scotland, and one firmly intended to improve access to justice for victims of crime,” Sturgeon said at the time.
‘It Doesn’t Make Sense’
The standard of proof is slightly different to not guilty but, speaking in September, Ross told The Epoch Times: “It doesn’t make sense. There is no reason to think that every not proven verdict we have had in Scotland would not have been a not guilty verdict. So it would have made no difference.”The bill will also see the creation of a new post of independent commissioner for victims and witnesses.
Juries have been a mainstay of the British legal system—in Scotland as well as England—for centuries and it is not clear if a rape defendant would have the right to challenge the removal of a jury in their case at the UK Supreme Court.
The only time a trial in England was allowed to go ahead without a jury was in March 2010 when John Twomey and three other men were convicted of a £1.75 million robbery at Heathrow Airport.
The trial, at the Old Bailey, was the first to be held without a jury for 350 years and followed a number of incidents of jury-tampering.
Rejecting the appeal of Twomey and the others, Lord Judge said, “This remains the only case in this jurisdiction where trial on indictment by judge alone has taken place to nullify the risk of jury tampering or jury nobbling.”
He added, “If criminals choose to subvert or attempt to subvert the process of trial by jury, they have no justified complaint if they are deprived of it.”
