Hard Cases Make Bad Law...

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...