Overview

The "not proven" verdict is a form of acquittal used in the criminal courts of Scotland. Unlike the binary guilty/not guilty system common in many jurisdictions, Scottish juries may return one of three formal outcomes: guilty, not guilty, or not proven. In practice, a not proven verdict means the jury is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved the accused's guilt, but the jury also does not feel able to affirmatively declare the accused innocent. Legally, a not proven verdict results in acquittal, but it carries a distinct social and rhetorical meaning compared with a not guilty verdict.

Key characteristics

  • Only used in criminal jury trials in Scotland; it is not a separate civil finding.
  • It operates as an acquittal: the accused is not convicted and is discharged from the charge, subject to limited statutory exceptions on retrial.
  • Scottish criminal juries normally consist of 15 jurors and reach decisions by simple majority; a minimum of eight votes is required for a guilty verdict.
  • The term "not proven" may carry different social implications than "not guilty" and is sometimes described colloquially as the "bastard verdict," a phrase popularized by Sir Walter Scott (see source).

History and origin

The not proven verdict has long been associated with the distinct development of Scots criminal procedure, which evolved separately from English law. Its modern form emerged through historical practice, jury instructions, and judicial formulation over many years. The phrase "bastard verdict" was applied in literary and popular commentary, reflecting public unease that a decision could acquit while seemingly withholding exoneration. For background on how juries function in Scotland, consult general information on Scottish juries here.

Uses, interpretation and consequences

Practically, a not proven verdict ends the prosecution on that charge in the same way as a not guilty verdict — the accused leaves the criminal process without a conviction. However, because juries choose not to endorse the defendant's innocence, the verdict can affect reputation, media coverage, and public perception. The possibility of a retrial after an acquittal is generally restricted by double-jeopardy principles; those principles are subject to limited statutory qualifications, so in exceptional circumstances a retrial may be permitted under the law.

Debate, reform and notable distinctions

The existence of a third acquittal option has generated sustained debate among legal professionals, politicians and the public. Arguments in favour of retaining not proven emphasize that it allows jurors to register doubt without convicting on insufficient evidence, thereby protecting against wrongful convictions. Critics argue it creates ambiguity, stigmatizes defendants despite acquittal, and can confuse lay observers about legal outcomes. Various reform proposals have been discussed, from abolishing the verdict to clearer jury directions or shifting to a two-verdict system; statutory and policy deliberations continue in different forums. For a concise statement about the two forms of acquittal used in Scotland, see this reference.

Notable facts

  • In common usage outside Scotland, the term "Scottish verdict" sometimes denotes the not proven outcome.
  • Although both not guilty and not proven are acquittals in law, they may carry different social meanings and consequences for those involved.
  • Discussions about the not proven verdict touch on fundamental criminal-law principles: burden of proof, presumption of innocence, and the balance between community safety and individual liberty.