A woman who won a civil rape case is spearheading a new campaign to end the not proven verdict in Scottish criminal trials.
The woman, known as Miss M, is joined by a host of women's and anti-violence organisations in calling for the "confusing" verdict to be scrapped.
The End Not Proven campaign argues it is used disproportionately in sexual violence cases and fear it gives juries an "easy out" when reaching their decision.
They say they want to hear the experiences - positive or negative - of people who have been affected by the not proven verdict.
Miss M, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was awarded £80,000 in damages last month against a man who had previously been cleared of raping her.
She sued Stephen Coxen, accusing him of raping her in St Andrews, Fife, after a night out in September 2013.
Coxen, of Bury in Lancashire, denied the charges and in November 2015 a jury acquitted him on a not-proven verdict in a criminal trial.
Following a recent civil case at the Personal Injury Court in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court building, Sheriff Robert Weir QC ruled she had been raped.
Judge ruled that Miss M was raped after civil case Personal Injury Court in Edinburgh Sheriff Court building
Miss M said: "It is not justice that motivated me to start this campaign to end the not proven verdict in Scotland, it was injustice."
Uniquely, Scotland has three verdicts - guilty, not guilty and not proven. Not guilty and not proven have the same result, both being verdicts of acquittal.
Miss M said the not proven verdict is "clouded with ambiguity".
"The certainty we apply to guilty and not guilty does not apply to not proven," she said.
"In amongst the uncertainty, what we know for sure is that not proven is most commonly used in cases of rape and sexual violence.
"I fear - as someone who received a not proven verdict and spent three long years fighting the Scottish legal system subsequently - that the not proven verdict means that those who are raped are unfairly left without justice and those who rape face no consequence, no sanction for their actions.
"What message does this send to society?
"Reporting rape is never going to be easy but I shouldn't have had to fight against the justice system in my pursuit for fairness. It didn't have to be this difficult.
"I am calling on the Scottish Government to give survivors a chance. There is no convincing argument to retain the outdated verdict, it's time to scrap not proven for good."
Read more: Rape civil action should be the cue for serious and informed debate
Rape Crisis Scotland is launching the End Not Proven campaign alongside Miss M.
They state that in 2016-17, only 39% of rape and attempted rape cases resulted in convictions, the lowest rate for any type of crime.
Nearly 30% of acquittals were not proven, compared with 17% for all crimes and offences.
The campaign is supported by Engender, the Scottish Women's Rights Centre and Zero Tolerance.
Scottish Women's Aid, which is also backing the drive, said: "Not proven is a third verdict that disproportionately impacts survivors of rape, many of whom are also survivors of domestic abuse.
"A verdict that is often interpreted as 'we probably believe you but we don't have the evidence' is just another element of a justice system that fails us time after time.
"Not proven is not justice and we stand by Miss M and those who want an end to this non-verdict."
Some legal experts, however, believe the three-verdict system should be retained.
Brian McConnachie QC told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme: "Juries understand the fact that there are two acquittal verdicts and the choice between them is simply a way of them indicating to the court which they feel best represents their verdict in the case.
"I don't think it's an 'easy out' at all. They are told that they are both verdicts of acquittal and therefore if they weren't finding somebody not proven, if that didn't exist, they would be finding them not guilty."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel