Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

To think the 'Not Proven' verdict is pointless

47 replies

Ghirly · 26/04/2014 03:38

As it technically means the accused walks free?

From what I know, Not Proven is for when the jury do not believe the accused is innocent yet feel there is not enough evidence to convict.
So where does that leave the victim?

I have witnessed my friend being destroyed by a crime yet her accused has walked free.....
Doesn't seem fair.

OP posts:

Original poster

Ghirly · 26/04/2014 14:47

Anyone?

OP posts:

Icimoi · 26/04/2014 14:48

It's only available in Scotland. In England and Wales, if the jury doesn't think there is enough evidence to convict, the verdict has to be Not Guilty. Not sure if that would make your friend feel any better.

pebblyshit · 26/04/2014 14:49

The alternative is not guilty - which leaves the accused walking free with a big grin

Tenrec · 26/04/2014 14:51

If the accused can't be proven to be guilty, then of course they should walk free- some of them would have done nothing? Innocent before proven guilty?

Andrewofgg · 26/04/2014 14:54

It has the same effect as Not Guilty. A long time ago the only verdicts in Scotland were Proven and Not Proven - then juries started bringing in Not Guilty where they thought right.

I fear that your friend will not have the satisfaction of seeing the accused convicted.

JohnCusacksWife · 26/04/2014 14:57

Not Proven is just another acquittal verdict. It means exactly the same as Not Guilty. It does NOT mean " we think you did it but we can't prove it".

Birdsgottafly · 26/04/2014 14:57

It leaves the victim feeling that they haven't had justice.

Which a "not guilty" would, as well.

The only consolation is that the accused hasn't been fully cleared.

When you look at how many rapists, violent thugs, child sex offenders have previous "not guilty", or the CPS wouldn't even take up the case, it is, for the publics sake, worth having the Not Proven, finding.

JohnCusacksWife · 26/04/2014 14:59

The accused has been acquitted....exactly the same as Not Guilty.

Birdsgottafly · 26/04/2014 14:59

X post, I didn't realise it meant Not Guilty, might as well scrap it then.

RubyReins · 26/04/2014 15:04

Second the other Scottish legal eagles on this thread - the directions from the bench to the jury are that both are verdicts of acquittal with the same effect. It does not mean "we think you did it but don't do it again". When a jury come back with the question "what's the difference between NG and NP" you know, as a prosecutor, that you're not going to get a conviction... There are a number of practitioners and groups (Rape Crisis for one) who would like to see it go.

I'm sorry for your friend - has she sought help and advice from a victim support group?

Caitlin17 · 26/04/2014 15:07

I've never practised in criminal law and it's decades since I graduated. I wasn't sure I knew what it meant even during the compulsory criminal law course and I'm still not sure now.

Judging from this I'm not alone in that

www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/06/1213/5

Getting rid of it comes up for discussion now and again but we've still got it.

Andrewofgg · 26/04/2014 15:08

I think Rape Crisis are wrong if they think abolition would lead to more convictions. If a jury is going to acquit it is going to acquit and if that means NG it means NG.

RubyReins · 26/04/2014 15:11

Andrew Totally and utterly agree. See also corroboration.

Caitlin17 · 26/04/2014 15:12

Birds I do know it's a full acquittal but I'm not clear on the subtleties of the difference between it and not guilty.

RubyReins · 26/04/2014 15:14

No difference at all. I think it puzzles juries if I am honest - it's quite a common jury question.

shockinglybadteacher · 26/04/2014 15:17

Not Proven means the fiscals haven't proved the case. It's not an unambiguous Not Guilty, but it also doesn't mean that the accused definitely did it. The accused will walk free and hopefully the fiscal will think on.

I've got a family member who was on the jury for a case which was Not Proven. They suspected very strongly that the accused had committed the crime but were unanimous that this was their feeling only - the prosecution had not given sufficient proof which passed "I feel it in me waters" and the circumstances were vague enough that they did not think they could convict.

It is a useful decision for a number of reasons and I would be sorry to see its loss...

AgentProvocateur · 26/04/2014 15:23

One of the arguments for it is that the jury are accepting that victims witnesses etc were telling the truth, but there still not be the necessary level of proof for a not guilty verdict.

RubyReins · 26/04/2014 15:29

That may be what juries think but the directions from the bench are that they are both verdicts of acquittal - that's all the judge says on the matter. A NG verdict similarly means that the Crown has not discharged the burden of proof to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. I don't really have a strong feeling about it tbh - only ever had two NP verdicts!

Caitlin17 · 26/04/2014 15:39

But "not guilty" is exactly the same. "Not guilty" is not the same as innocent; the Crown failed to prove guilt- the accused isn't found to be innocent"

It doesn't happen often but following an acquittal it is possible for victims to bring civil proceedings for damages and win as the standard of proof is on a balance of probability not beyond all reasonable doubt.

There is an English case where 4 men were found not guilty of a gang rape and their accuser was charged with perjury. She was found not guilty too as the Crown could not prove they had raped her nor that she was lying.

Caitlin17 · 26/04/2014 15:41

Sorry Ruby I agree with you and was replying to Agent Provocateur.

jjsuk · 26/04/2014 15:43

The not proven verdict is exactly that. The peer-based jury does not believe there is enough evidence to charge the accused for the crime. what would you rather have happen? They prosecute based on hunch or disbelief?

Caitlin17 · 26/04/2014 15:49

jjsuk no one is saying anything different. What point are you making? Not proven and not guilty both mean the Crown didn't lead enough evidence to persuade a jury.

shockinglybadteacher · 26/04/2014 15:51

There is also the interesting case of the Omagh bombing where attempts at criminal prosecution failed and a civil prosecution succeeded. More recently, there have been appeals from those who were given costs after the civil trial to the ECHR and criminal charges laid against someone who is suspected of being directly responsible for Omagh.

I think trials are messy and complex and that we can't get the perfect justice to make everyone happy. We sort of have to muddle along, and yes, we do need to regard the accused's rights - not doing that leads to vigilantism, mob "justice" and the sort of "no smoke without fire" ideas which activate a lot of the Daily Mail readers...

Caitlin17 · 26/04/2014 15:52

Actually the jury has no say on the evidence leading to the charge; that's for the CPS and the Fiscal. The jury decide if the evidence is sufficient to convict.

WilsonFrickett · 26/04/2014 15:57

I've been on a jury where we found the accused guilty of some charges and NP on others, because we felt the evidence genuinely did not prove the charge, rather than his innocence, if that makes sense.

Obviously I'm not giving away too many details here, but it was something like for the accused to be guilty he had to be in a certain place at a certain time. There were no witnesses to say he was, but there was also no evidence to say he wasn't. He couldn't be proven innocent, for example, there was no alibi. He could well have done it and there was a link to other charges which he was found guilty of.

I'm probably fudging that so much that it doesn't make sense, but in the jury room we were glad that NP was an option.

But the end result is the same for the victim, of course, and I'm sorry for your friend OP.

Flip

1 2