The Not Proven Verdict
What it was, why it was abolished, and what its removal means in practice
For centuries Scottish juries had three verdicts available to them. Guilty. Not guilty. And not proven.
The not proven verdict was unique to Scotland. It existed nowhere else in the United Kingdom and in very few jurisdictions anywhere in the world. It was frequently misunderstood, regularly criticised, and occasionally defended with considerable passion. From 1 January 2026 it was abolished for all new criminal trials.
This page explains what the not proven verdict was, the arguments made for and against it, why it was removed, and what its abolition means in practice for the people most directly affected by it.
What not proven meant
A not proven verdict was an acquittal. A person who received a not proven verdict walked free. They were not convicted. They were not sentenced. They were not imprisoned. In legal terms the effect of a not proven verdict was identical to the effect of a not guilty verdict.
What distinguished not proven from not guilty was not its legal consequence but its meaning. A not guilty verdict carries an implication, however imprecise, that the jury did not believe the Crown's case. A not proven verdict carried a different implication. It suggested that the jury was not satisfied the Crown had proved its case but was not prepared to positively assert that the accused was innocent.
In plain terms not proven meant something like: we are not sure. The evidence was not sufficient to convict but we are not willing to say this person definitely did not do it.
That distinction mattered to jurors, to accused persons, to complainers, and to the public in different ways and for different reasons.
How it was used in practice
Not proven was used in a significant minority of cases in Scotland, more frequently in serious cases and particularly in sexual offence cases. Research suggested that juries reached not proven verdicts in roughly a quarter of acquittals in rape cases over certain periods, though the figures varied across studies and time periods.
Its use was uneven and its meaning was interpreted differently by different juries. Some jurors understood it as expressing doubt about the Crown's case without doubt about the accused's innocence. Others used it as a way of registering belief that something had happened without being satisfied to the criminal standard that what the Crown alleged had been proved.
This inconsistency was one of the principal criticisms of the verdict. If jurors used it in different ways its presence in the jury room introduced an unpredictable element that neither side could fully account for and that the accused in particular could not fully understand.
The arguments against not proven
The case for abolition rested on several arguments.
Unlike a not guilty verdict it left a shadow over the accused. The implication of a shadow acquittal could follow a person for years, affecting their reputation, employment and relationships.
Jurors did not always understand what it meant or how to use it. Its presence complicated deliberations in ways that were unpredictable and sometimes counterproductive.
In sexual offence cases a not proven verdict could feel to a complainer like a verdict that believed them but refused to act on that belief. The emotional impact was said to be significant and harmful.
The Scottish Government commissioned independent jury research and held a public consultation on the three-verdict system and related jury reforms. Following that process, the Scottish Parliament enacted the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, and the not proven verdict ceased to be available in new criminal trials from 1 January 2026.
The arguments for retention
The case for keeping not proven was also seriously made by people with significant knowledge of how the Scottish criminal justice system actually works.
The verdict gave jurors a real option in cases where the evidence was genuinely ambiguous allowing them to register uncertainty without being forced into a verdict carrying implications they did not intend.
Where the entire prosecution rested on mutual corroboration of multiple allegations, not proven let jurors express doubt about the pattern inference without having to choose between conviction and positively asserting innocence.
Removing not proven does not remove the doubt that produced such verdicts it forces that doubt to go somewhere else, and the concern was that it would more often produce conviction.
Those who argued for retention also pointed to the available evidence on how removal might affect outcomes. Some research suggested that abolition would lead to an increase in convictions in cases that had previously produced not proven verdicts. Whether that increase would represent justice being done or injustice being compounded depended entirely on whether the cases in question involved genuine guilt or genuine doubt.
What changed on abolition
The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 removed not proven from the available verdicts for all new criminal trials from 1 January 2026. Scottish juries now return one of two verdicts only. Guilty or not guilty.
The mechanics of jury deliberation changed immediately. The directions given to juries changed. The options available to jurors changed. And the strategic landscape of serious criminal trials changed with them.
For the defence the removal of not proven means that a juror who has serious doubt but is not prepared to assert innocence can no longer register that doubt through a third option. The doubt must now go somewhere else. Whether it goes to not guilty or to guilty depends on the individual juror and the specific case, but the structural pressure created by having only two options is different from the pressure that existed when three were available.
For the Crown the removal of not proven removes the possibility of a verdict that acquits without asserting innocence, which some prosecutors considered a worse outcome than not guilty in cases where they believed the evidence supported the Crown's account even if it fell short of the criminal standard.
For complainers the removal of not proven means that the shadow acquittal that many found so painful is no longer possible. The outcome of a trial is now either conviction or a clear acquittal.
The unanswered questions
The full consequences of abolition will only become clear over time as cases proceed through the courts under the new two-verdict system.
The concern most frequently raised by legal practitioners is the one already mentioned in this page and on the Moorov doctrine page. In cases that turn on credibility alone, and particularly in Moorov cases where the prosecution rests on a pattern inference, the removal of the middle ground may produce outcomes that do not accurately reflect the actual state of the jury's thinking.
A juror who would previously have voted not proven because they had genuine doubt but were not prepared to assert innocence must now choose between conviction and not guilty. The direction of that choice and whether it will systematically favour conviction over acquittal in cases of genuine doubt is a question that only the accumulation of evidence over time can answer.
What can be said with confidence is that the change is significant, that the concerns raised about it were serious and were made by people with genuine knowledge of how criminal trials work, and that its consequences for the accused in cases involving genuine uncertainty deserve continued scrutiny.
What to take from this page
The not proven verdict was a uniquely Scottish third option that produced an acquittal without asserting innocence. It was abolished for all new criminal trials from 1 January 2026 under the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, following concerns that it was stigmatising, confusing and harmful to complainers. The case for its retention rested on the argument that it gave jurors a genuine way to express doubt in cases of genuine uncertainty, particularly in Moorov cases where the entire prosecution rested on a pattern inference. Its abolition means that doubt must now resolve itself into one of only two verdicts. The full consequences of that change are still emerging.
Information only. This page does not constitute legal advice. Law changes and individual cases vary. Anyone facing criminal proceedings in Scotland should seek advice from a qualified Scottish solicitor at the earliest opportunity.
Support exists for families going through this, not just for the person accused. Family Support and Legal Support and Representation cover finding a solicitor, legal aid, and organisations that work directly with families in this position.
Pages in this section
Sources
Important
Abolished in 2026
The not proven verdict was removed by the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025. Scottish juries now return only guilty or not guilty. The full consequences of this change for cases involving genuine uncertainty are still emerging.