Thomas Ross KC on the Demise of ‘Not Proven’ and Scotland’s New Jury Thresholds
By Accused Scot | 12 January 2026
In a recent YouTube podcast episode, Craig Houston speaks with Thomas Leonard Ross KC, one of Scotland’s leading King’s Counsels, about the major changes to Scottish criminal trials effective for cases starting on or after 1 January 2026 under the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025. These include abolishing the “not proven” verdict and requiring at least 10 out of 15 jurors for a guilty verdict. Ross, who began a trial under the new rules shortly after implementation, provides a practitioner’s critique.
The End of ‘Not Proven’: A Verdict Vanishes
Scotland’s longstanding three-verdict system, guilty, not guilty, and not proven has been replaced with two: guilty or not guilty. Ross describes the rollout as abrupt, with practitioners given limited notice.
He calls the abolition a “huge mistake” and a “national disgrace,” arguing “not proven” was uniquely valuable in finely balanced cases, allowing juries to express uncertainty without implying full belief in either side. “Scotland was ahead of the world in having ‘not proven’,” he says, “and Parliament has torn it up and thrown it in the bin with no justification.”
Ross favours reframing verdicts as “proven” or “not proven” beyond reasonable doubt, aligning better with the jury’s role in assessing proof rather than innocence/guilt. This, he believes, would create a fairer system envied worldwide.
Motivations Behind the Change: Targeting Conviction Rates?
Ross believes the primary aim is to increase convictions, especially in sexual offence cases where evidence is often contested and credibility central. He credits advocacy from groups like Rape Crisis Scotland but argues the change lacks serious intellectual justification and prioritises statistics over fairness.
In cases with conflicting credible accounts, “not proven” allowed juries to say the Crown hadn’t proved beyond reasonable doubt. Removing it may pressure juries towards guilty verdicts to avoid seeming to call the complainer a liar. If some innocent people need to be convicted to raise the figures, that’s just a casualty of getting the numbers up,
he warns.
He notes the government’s view that “not proven” causes confusion and distress to victims, while highlighting the absence of robust juror research before such changes, unlike in more mature systems.
Jury Majorities: A Step Forward, But Not Far Enough
Ross welcomes moving from simple majority (8-7 possible) to at least 10 out of 15 for guilty, addressing Scotland’s unique low threshold. Anything below 10 defaults to not guilty.
However, he says it’s still lower than England’s 10-2 out of 12 (≈83%) and suggests 11-4 or 12-3 would better reflect the prosecution’s burden. Scotland retains 15 jurors (unique globally) and doesn’t disclose vote splits to the accused except in unanimous cases. Jury size reduction to 12 was dropped, possibly to avoid more acquittals.
Broader Implications and Personal Reflections
Houston shares his own case delays, and both stress judging cases on facts, not statistics. Ross explains stepping back from sexual offence cases after a UK Supreme Court ruling highlighting fair trial risks from restrictions on defence evidence and questioning (sections 274/275 concerns).
Why This Matters for the Accused
These changes alter how juries handle doubt in close cases. While supporters argue for clarity and victim support, Ross warns of risks to fair trials. Scrutiny will be essential as the system adapts.
For the full discussion, watch the episode on Craig Houston’s YouTube channel.
Thomas Ross KC’s insights provide a vital perspective from the front lines, reminding us that legal changes affect real lives. His views represent a practitioner’s analysis, not official findings.
Accused.scot is dedicated to exploring issues facing those in the Scottish justice system.