The first item of business today is SB122 in the name of the government. The question for debate is that Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Criminal Verdicts (Scotland) Bill.

Criminal Verdicts (Scotland) Bill

An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision about the verdicts available in criminal proceedings; and for connected purposes.

Section 1: Restriction to verdicts

In the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, after section 292 insert:

Section 292A: Available verdicts

In criminal proceedings, the only verdicts available to be rendered are guilty and not guilty.

Section 2: References to guilt

In any document, instrument, or enactment previously passed, any reference to “not proven” is to be read as references to “not guilty”.

Section 3: Commencement

This Act comes into force two weeks subsequent to Royal Assent.

Section 4: Short title

The short title of this Act is the Criminal Verdicts (Scotland) Act 2020.

This Bill was submitted by the Rt Hon. The Baron Grantham KT KP KD KCB KBE MVO PC QC MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice on behalf of the Scottish Government.

This debate will end at 10 pm on the 23 August and the Bill will go to a vote the following day.

Opening Speech:

Presiding Officer,

This is a piece of legislation which I am extremely pleased to lay before this chamber. The aim and purpose of this Bill is simple: to purge the use of “not proven” from our legal system. This is a noble goal and I shall explain why: social stigma. With three verdicts available for use, the sanctity and absolutist nature of the verdicts are fundamentally undermined. When you render a verdict of not proven, the innate implications of this verdict suggest to you that there is a possibility that they were guilty - as the former First Minister wonderfully put it, it works sort of a slap on the wrist which says “you probably did it, but we don’t have enough evidence to convict you.” Well, quite frankly, Presiding Officer, if you haven’t enough evidence, the defendant is NOT GUILTY! No ifs, no buts, we presume innocence before guilty, and if there is not enough evidence, we do not make life difficult for them afterwards! How could life be made difficult for persons subject to a verdict of “not proven”, I hear you all ask. Well, it is the social stigma which I mentioned earlier that is subconsciously consequent from the use of a verdict of not proven. We should not sit by and continue this to go on. We need to defend the presumption of innocence, not just within our courts, but without. We need to usher in a new period in Scottish justice where verdicts are absolute and respect the principle upon which it was founded upon.

I hope to see members from across this chamber joining me in supporting this Bill.

- Vitiating