Joe and Kate Duffy were devastated and baffled when the man accused of their daughter's murder walked free from court. They had felt certain that Francis Auld would be found guilty of killing 19-year-old Amanda in Hamilton in 1992. But a jury found the charges against him not proven - one of two verdicts of acquittal which could be returned in criminal trials in Scotland.
But not any longer - for ‘progress’, it would seem. Has ever a word been so misused?
Joe and Kate did not initially understand what the jury's verdict meant – and have now spent more than three decades campaigning for the abolition of not proven.
From 1 January, this centuries-old verdict has been consigned to the history books and Scottish trials will end with the accused being found either guilty or not guilty.
Making Scotland no longer unique.
A common interpretation of not proven was that the jury suspected the accused was guilty, but felt the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Good luck finding that in a law book. As Joe and Kate were to discover, there was no written legal definition of not proven. Over the years, whenever juries asked, all judges could tell them was that it was a verdict of acquittal, just like not guilty. Research has also shown that some people thought - incorrectly - that the accused could be tried again if the verdict was not proven.
If that was a reason for throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it was the wrong one:
That has been allowed in exceptional circumstances since 2011 under double jeopardy legislation, but the method of acquittal plays no part in that process.
So why the push to throw out centuries of Scottish legal tradition, something native born Scots usually rail against?
Joe explained: "I've never understood why you can have two verdicts which mean exactly the same thing.
"The only difference in law between not proven and not guilty is spelling. "That's it. Why do we need them? Either you're guilty or not guilty."
Well, now that's indeed all you can be. It's too early to tell if it's been a terrible mistake or not. I know how I'd vote, though...
4 comments:
Some years ago, a friend and colleague was tried in a Scottish court after a former pupil (with a long history of mental instability) made allegations of inappropriate behaviour nearly forty years earlier.
The presiding judge directed the jury that, due to the elapsed time, the nature of the case and certain technicalities of police procedure, the only possible verdict in law was ‘not proven’. However, the judge went on, my friend had consistently shown himself to be an exemplary and dedicated teacher who, following this acquittal, was leaving the court with no stain whatsoever on his character and should be able to resume teaching immediately.
Unfortunately for my friend, a self-appointed ‘internet justice campaigner’ took up the case and - as we were working in England - managed to convince the Head and school governors that the verdict implied culpability (following that up for good measure with threats of organised protests and public denunciation). The judge’s words of commendation carried no weight south of the border so, ‘for the good of the school’, my friend was ‘persuaded’ to take early retirement on medical grounds.
I can’t help feeling that this move will only encourage similar interpretation of historic verdicts on both sides of the border and play into the hands of the biased, malicious or simply legally ignorant.
Taking a bulldozer to Chesterton's fence
It seems that every change that claims to be for the better isn't. Especially when 'threats of organised protests and public denunciation' are used in conjunction.
'Twas ever thus. But I thought the Scots would fight harder for something so uniquely Scottish.
Post a Comment