This summer, members of the Scottish Parliament will return from recess to finalise one of the most significant pieces of legislation in recent memory: the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill.

Among the critical reforms proposed is the long-overdue abolition of the not proven verdict, a relic of Scottish criminal law that has confused juries and denied justice to victims for far too long.

Victim Support Scotland welcomes this potential step forward and urges our political leaders to see the removal of this verdict not just as a legislative change but as a necessity for modern justice.

Scotland is the only country in the world to have the not proven verdict alongside guilty and not guilty. But unlike its counterparts, not proven has no official legal definition – a bizarre fact that I’ve found most people are shocked to discover.

As Professor James Chalmers pointed out in a previous article in The Herald, the verdict came about through pure accident in the first place in the 1700s. So why are we still clinging on to it?

To the average person, the lack of definition of not proven creates a feeling of uncertainty about how exactly it should be used in a trial. Jurors are offered no specific guidance on how to return this verdict, only being told that it provides the same acquittal as not guilty, leaving it wide open for misinterpretation.

When juries return a not proven verdict, the accused is acquitted and walks free. But the implications for victims are complex.

For victims and survivors of crime, a not proven verdict feels like a denial of their experience. It offers no closure, clarity or comfort.........

© Herald Scotland