Justice system ‘at risk of being adulterated’ with reforms, MSPs warned

Scrapping Scotland’s not proven verdict, together with other changes to the legal system, could put “at some substantial risk” the right that someone is innocent until they are proven guilty, ministers have been warned.

Stuart Murray, president of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, also told MSPs that the not proven verdict in the current court system acts as a “safety valve” for jurors.

The Scottish Government has put forward legislation that would ditch the third verdict in court rooms, leaving just guilty and not guilty verdicts open to juries.

The Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill also proposes a pilot for trials without juries in cases of rape or attempted rape.

Mr Murray told Holyrood’s Criminal Justice Committee, which is scrutinising the proposals, that scrapping not proven is “being considered at a time when other considerations are being looked at which could completely alter the landscape of the criminal justice system in Scotland”.

He added: “This seems to come at a time when along with those other proposals, it puts, I think, the criminal justice system in Scotland at risk of being adulterated and access to justice and the rights of the accused, innocent until proven guilty, at some substantial risk.”

His comments came as other witnesses told the committee that scrapping not proven without replacing it with other legal “safeguards” could lead to a rise in wrongful convictions.

Sandy Brindley, chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, last week told MSPs the current system means “guilty men are regularly walking free”.

Stuart Munro, of the Law Society of Scotland, told the committee on Wednesday the present arrangements form a “broadly safe system”.

But he went on to caution MSPs that “disturbing that balance will have ramifications” with regards to removing the not proven verdict.

Mr Munro said: “It is very hard to give any kind of specific prediction how many wrongful convictions that might result in, but that has got to be the logical implication of it.

“If you take away something that is regarded as a safeguard, and don’t address some of these other areas of concern, then yes, there would have to be a risk of an increase in wrongful convictions.”

At present 15 people are required for a jury in Scotland, and only a simple majority is needed to convict an accused.

MSPs were told that in many other countries where juries have 12 people on them, jurors are required to reach a unanimous verdict, although in some cases a verdict can be returned without this.

In the Bill, Scottish ministers propose changing juror numbers from 15 to 12.

A minimum of eight people would then be required to find a person guilty before they can be convicted.

But Ronnie Renucci KC, vice dean of the Faculty of Advocates, insisted: “That majority has to be 10, at least 10.”

His comments came as he criticised the research the Scottish Government produced in favour of its changes, which was based on mock trials where jurors were shown a video of a case, and then asked to come to a verdict on the accused.

Mr Renucci said: “We should not be changing our whole legal system based on research with mock jurors, which really didn’t in any way mirror what happens within the courts.

“The mock trial lasted an hour. I have conducted between 250 and 300 rape trials in my career. I have never had a rape trial that has lasted only a day.

“I think we should really hesitate before making major decisions based on that type of information.”

He stressed the Faculty of Advocates, which represents senior lawyers in Scotland, has “no difficulty with removing not proven if another safeguard is put in its place”.

He added: “If we are changing and we are going to a smaller jury size, with a different size of majority, then clearly there is no place for not proven in that system.

“It has its place in our system at present. But if we move away from the system we have at present, we would obviously move away from not proven as well.”