Alex Salmond deid.

[welshbairn]

From wiki.

Quote

Although historically it may be a similar verdict to not guilty, in the present day not proven is typically used by a jury when there is a belief that the defendant is guilty but The Crown has not provided sufficient evidence. Scots law requires corroboration; the evidence of one witness, however credible, is not sufficient to prove a charge against an accused or to establish any material or crucial fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

[Boo Khaki]

I think it's important to remember "typically used" is different from "this is what it actually means".

Edited Wednesday at 12:38 by Boo Khaki

[DeeTillEhDeh]

2 hours ago, Wee-Bey said:

I always took Not Proven to mean that the prosecution were unable to prove guilt and  the defence were unable to prove that they didn't do it.

The defence's duty is to defend their client from unfair practices, false evidence, assumptions of guilt, and to protect their client's best interests.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, Boo Khaki said:

I think it's important to remember "typically used" is different from "this is what it actually means".

That's fair.

However, it does represent a more satisfactory explanation for why different verdicts might have been arrived at in this instance, than anything else that's been offered.

[tamthebam]

21 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

paging @tamthebam to the Alex Salmond thread....

Juries often ask the question "what is the difference between the two?" 

The Judge/Sheriff tells the Jury in what is called "The Charge" that both are verdicts of acquittal and it's up to them which one they choose. There has been no High Court ruling on the matter as far as I know. 

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

2 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

As Scots jurors are specifically forbidden from commenting on their reasons for their findings, we will never know.

Legally, all that matters is that Salmond was acquitted of all charges in this specific case, no matter what commentators try to imply.

Jurors can also ignore judge's directions without giving any reason.

For example, Clive Ponting was acquitted of breaching the Official Secrets Act despite admitting to leaking documents relating to the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. The judge directed the jury that Ponting’s duty lay to the civil service and that he had no viable defence.

Edited Wednesday at 12:53 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Boo Khaki]

4 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

That's fair.

However, it does represent a more satisfactory explanation for why different verdicts might have been arrived at in this instance, than anything else that's been offered.

Indeed.

I'll admit, I used to be an advocate of getting shot of "not guilty" when I thought that was an interloper, but in reality, getting rid of "not proven" makes perfect sense. If there is any reasonable doubt over guilt whatsoever, then a defendant must be acquitted, so it follows that anyone who has ever been the recipient of a "not proven" verdict would have received a "not guilty" in its stead if the former was not available, and that should put an end to this idea that people receiving the NP verdict did actually commit a crime but "got away with it".

[Boo Khaki]

Here's the legislation I mentioned earlier - 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/victims-witnesses-and-justice-reform-bill-factsheet/pages/not-proven-jury-reforms/

Quote

There is no definition of the not proven verdict and nothing in law which defines the difference between the not proven and not guilty verdicts. Jurors therefore receive no explanation of what the not proven verdict means or how it differs from not guilty.

This would seem to back up my suspicion that jurors return NP because of the common perception of what it means, and not because of what it actually does mean

Edited Wednesday at 12:56 by Boo Khaki

[lichtgilphead]

5 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Jurors can also ignore judge's directions without giving any reason.

For example, Clive Ponting was acquitted of breaching the Official Secrets Act despite admitting to leaking documents relating to the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. The judge directed the jury that Ponting’s duty lay to the civil service and that he had no viable defence.

Discussing the case outside the jury room is a contempt of court, not a refusal to follow the judge's specific directions about a case.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

2 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Indeed.

I'll admit, I used to be an advocate of getting shot of "not guilty" when I thought that was an interloper, but in reality, getting rid of "not proven" makes perfect sense. If there is any reasonable doubt over guilt whatsoever, then a defendant must be acquitted, so it follows that anyone who has ever been the recipient of a "not proven" verdict would have received a "not guilty" in its stead if the former was not available, and that should put an end to this idea that people receiving the NP verdict did actually commit a crime but "got away with it".

I'd agree with this.

Not Proven has been long misinterpreted by the general public - getting rid of it would remove any ambiguity over acquittal in the public eye.

[btb]

35 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Here's the legislation I mentioned earlier - 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/victims-witnesses-and-justice-reform-bill-factsheet/pages/not-proven-jury-reforms/

This would seem to back up my suspicion that jurors return NP because of the common perception of what it means, and not because of what it actually does mean

But why only on one case - they must've had a slightly different perspective on the NP one.

Total speculation but say most were unanimous decisions but the NP was only a majority.

[welshbairn]

If I recall correctly the NP verdict was for the behaviour that he admitted making an official apology for the next morning. 

Edited Wednesday at 13:49 by welshbairn

[Silvio Tattiescone]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e9q8x5jejo

 

Macglashan flying him home?

[A Diamond For Me]

I'm not invested in "not proven" one or way or the other, but it strikes me that if the problem is "people don't understand it", then it's incumbent on the courts, the education system and the media reporting on trials to make it clear.  People need to know how the legal system they live under and have no way of opting out of short of leaving the country actually operates.  It's not satisfactory for people's understanding of their rights to be a mix of what their mate who was called for jury service once said and something they read in a Rebus novel/Wikipedia jumbled with procedures they've seen in English and American films and TV. 

[Billy Jean King]

2 hours ago, Silvio Tattiescone said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e9q8x5jejo

 

Macglashan flying him home?

Clearly didn't have adequate travel insurance which seems a bit bizarre. 

[Thistle_do_nicely]

3 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Indeed.

I'll admit, I used to be an advocate of getting shot of "not guilty" when I thought that was an interloper, but in reality, getting rid of "not proven" makes perfect sense. If there is any reasonable doubt over guilt whatsoever, then a defendant must be acquitted, so it follows that anyone who has ever been the recipient of a "not proven" verdict would have received a "not guilty" in its stead if the former was not available, and that should put an end to this idea that people receiving the NP verdict did actually commit a crime but "got away with it".

Ha, that just reminded me of this a little bit, watched it a while back.
 

 

[git-intae-thum]

On 15/10/2024 at 16:53, Monkey Tennis said:

 

Despite his political achievements, the very kindest interpretation to emerge from the allegations he faced, was that he was one creepy b*****d.

The verdicts didn't alter either part.

Did you attend the trial and hear all the evidence?

Because 15 Scottish citizens did ...... and listened to weeks of evidence ...... and decided none of the allegations had substance.

 

 

[Monkey Tennis]

4 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

Did you attend the trial and hear all the evidence?

Because 15 Scottish citizens did ...... and listened to weeks of evidence ...... and decided none of the allegations had substance.

No.

I know what verdicts were reached.  I've not challenged them.

 

I also know the case confirmed the "creepy b*****d" reading.

I also know that your fondness for Salmond is such that you're 'respecting' these verdicts in ways you wouldn't remotely be, had they gone in different directions. 

This daft, flimsy thing people do of clinging desperately to the bits that confirm their existing preferred reading, while resolutely refusing to even countenance anything less comfortable, is transparently self serving, as well as a bit stupid.

[git-intae-thum]

57 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

No.

I know what verdicts were reached.  I've not challenged them.

 

I also know the case confirmed the "creepy b*****d" reading.

I also know that your fondness for Salmond is such that you're 'respecting' these verdicts in ways you wouldn't remotely be, had they gone in different directions. 

This daft, flimsy thing people do of clinging desperately to the bits that confirm their existing preferred reading, while resolutely refusing to even countenance anything less comfortable, is transparently self serving, as well as a bit stupid.

What a lot of nonsense.

The reality is that a lot of people to this day refuse to accept his innocence ..... more than 4 years after the conclusion of the trial.... based on their own  preconceived bias or political agenda.

[GHF-23]

20 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

What a lot of nonsense.

The reality is that a lot of people to this day refuse to accept his innocence ..... more than 4 years after the conclusion of the trial.... based on their own  preconceived bias or political agenda.

This has been gone over so many times that it's quite pathetic for you to cling onto such a willful misinterpretation. MT and most others here are not saying it was incorrect for him to be cleared of charges, but rather that factual details accepted by both sides, and descriptions of his character by both sides, of the court case have coloured their sense of his propriety and character. The court is there to decide whether someone is guilty of committing a crime; a not guilty/not proven verdict reflects only specific instances about which a criminal charge has been brought, and people are free to infer/believe whatever they like about the general character of the person regardless - in this case that he was cleared of the crimes for which he was tried, but that his sexual behaviour was, to put it simply, inappropriate, creepy and not befitting of his position(s) of trust and power (note, this does not mean he should be locked up or challenge the verdict in the court case in which he was tried, before you start this cycle again). There is no contradiction in that whatsoever and you've created a comfortable fantasy for yourself if you genuinely believe otherwise.