Editing Not proven (section)

===Calls for reform===
There have been repeated calls to abolish the "not proven" verdict since the middle of the 20th century.<ref>{{Cite book | author = John Gray Wilson | title = Not Proven | publisher = Secker and Warburg | year = 1960 | pages = 7–8 }}</ref> In 1975, the Thomson Committee on Criminal Procedure in Scotland (chaired by [[Roy Thomson, 1st Baron Thomson of Fleet|Lord Thomson]]) recommended retaining the three-verdict system.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.scot/Publications/2012/07/4794/17|title=Reforming Scots Criminal Law and Practice: The Carloway Report: Footnotes|access-date=29 October 2018}}</ref> The [[Scottish Office]] consulted on removing "not proven" in 1994.<ref name="holyrood">{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=10386&i=95618|title=Official Report: Meeting of the Parliament 25 February 2016|date=25 February 2016|access-date=29 October 2018}}</ref> Unsuccessful attempts to scrap the "not proven" verdict were made in Parliament by [[Donald Dewar]] in 1969, [[George Robertson, Baron Robertson of Port Ellen|George Robertson]] in 1993 (prompted by the trial outcome in the [[murder of Amanda Duffy]]) and [[Donald Macaulay, Baron Macaulay of Bragar|Lord Macauly of Bragar]] in 1995.<ref name="holyrood" /> A members' bill to abolish the "not proven" verdict was debated in the [[Scottish Parliament]] in 2016, but was rejected by 80 votes to 28.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/msps-reject-attempt-to-abolish-not-proven-verdict-from-scots-law|title=MSPs reject attempt to abolish 'not proven' verdict from Scots law|date=26 February 2016|access-date=29 October 2018|work=[[Scottish Legal News]]}}</ref>

Proponents of reform argue that the "not proven" verdict is widely regarded as an [[acquittal]] used when the [[judge]] or [[jury]] does not have enough [[Evidence (law)|evidence]] to [[Conviction|convict]] but is not sufficiently convinced of the accused person's innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict. Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but guilt has not been proven "beyond [[reasonable doubt]]".<ref name="borrowed" /> Conversely, its opponents argue that a two-verdict system would lead to an increase in wrongful convictions.<ref name="In3V"/>

Following a not proven verdict in a criminal trial in 2015, Miss M successfully sued Stephen Coxen in the civil courts, in what was the first civil damages action for rape following an unsuccessful criminal prosecution in almost 100 years. In 2018, Miss M launched #EndNotProven alongside Rape Crisis Scotland, calling for Not Proven to be removed and citing the disproportionate use in rape cases, the widespread misunderstandings of the verdict and fears that it is being used as an 'easy way out' by jurors.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/campaigns-end-not-proven/|title=End Not Proven|website=Rape Crisis Scotland|access-date=2024-03-13}}</ref>

In April 2023, the Scottish government published the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill which, if passed, will abolish the not proven verdict.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.scot/publications/victims-witnesses-and-justice-reform-bill-factsheet/|title=Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill: factsheet|website=Gov.scot|date=26 April 2023|access-date=26 April 2023}}</ref> In April 2024, the Scottish Parliament voted to advance the bill to Stage 2, where members can submit amendments on the bill to committee.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/victims-witnesses-and-justice-reform-scotland-bill/stage-1/|title=Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill|website=Parliament.scot|date=23 April 2024|access-date=4 June 2024}}</ref>