HC Deb 05 February 1962 vol 653 cc17-8
22. Mr. Rankin

asked the Lord Advocate if he will take powers to abolish the verdict of guilty used by the Scottish courts and substitute in its favour the verdict of proven.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant)

No, Sir.

Mr. Rankin

Is it not a fact that a person is deemed innocent, if charged, until he is proved guilty? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think it a shocking injustice that a person could leave a court not proved guilty yet bearing a smear that will follow him all the days of his life? Does he defend that situation?

The Lord Advocate

That is a rather different question, and it is one to which I have been asked to give a Written Answer today. The hon. Gentleman has asked whether I would abolish the verdict of guilty. The verdicts guilty, not proven and not guilty have been used satisfactorily in conjunction in the Scottish courts at least since 1728. They have worked extremely well and I see no reason why the traditional use which has worked so well should be altered.

Mr. Rankin

The fact that something has been in use since 1728 is not a defence of its continued use in 1962. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that, if he followed my Questions properly, we could have two verdicts only in Scottish law, proven or not proven?

The Lord Advocate

If the hon. Gentleman considers not proven to leaves smear I am a little surprised that he wishes it to be the only verdict which will give an acquittal. On the other point about this having worked well for over 200 years, I should tell him that the verdict of not guilty was re-established in 1728 in Scotland as a result of complaints from the defence and the abilities of defence lawyers in the courts.

Mr. Woodburn

Is the Lord Advocate aware that a jury is not asked to testify to the innocence of a person but is asked only to say whether the prosecution has made out its case? Therefore, is not the proper verdict in a court to say that the prosecution has not proved its case and, therefore, it is not proven? It is quite a different matter to go on and say that the man is innocent.

The Lord Advocate

That may well be, but it seems desirable, in a case where a jury is satisfied that a person is not guilty, that it should be allowed to say so.