Scotland Abolishes Its ‘Bastard Verdict’

When most people think of criminal trials, they envision a simple outcome: guilty or not guilty. Since the 17th century, however, Scotland operated differently, as Scottish juries wielded a third option, ‘not proven’, that existed nowhere else in the world.

On 17th September 2025, this uniquely Scottish verdict was finally consigned to history when the Scottish Parliament passed the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill.

Scotland’s three-verdict system was unique. Like ‘not guilty’, a ‘not proven’ verdict resulted in acquittal, the accused walked free and could not be retried for the same offence. Yet the two verdicts carried profoundly different implications. ‘Not guilty’ declared unequivocally that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. ‘Not proven’, by contrast, inhabited murkier territory, seeming to say: “We think you probably did it, but we can’t be certain enough to convict.”

This ambiguity earned it the memorable name ‘the bastard verdict’, a phrase that perfectly captured its uncomfortable position within Scottish justice. Whilst technically clearing someone’s name, it often cast a lingering shadow over their reputation, leaving them in a kind of legal limbo.

The verdict’s origins lie in Scotland’s 16th and 17th century legal practices when juries didn’t decide if someone was guilty directly. Instead, they looked at each allegation specifically in an indictment and stated whether it was ‘proven’ or ‘not proven’. Over time, the simpler verdicts of ‘guilty’ and ‘not guilty’ took hold, but ‘not proven’ stubbornly persisted. It became woven into Scotland’s legal identity, an idiosyncratic feature that distinguished its justice system for over three centuries.

Whilst a handful of other jurisdictions flirted with similar concepts, including some early U.S. courts and historic Swedish law with its ‘insufficient evidence’ acquittal, Scotland remained the only nation to formally retain ‘not proven’ until its recent abolition.

For as long as this verdict has existed, so has the controversy surrounding it. Critics have often condemned it as confusing or unfair, and deeply stigmatising. Victims frequently felt it denied them justice, while acquitted people felt it permanently tarnished their reputation. The verdict proved particularly contentious in sexual offence cases, where it was deployed more often than in other crimes. Campaigners argued this showed juries were reluctant to convict even when they believed a crime likely occurred.

Supporters, however, defended ‘not proven’ as a way for juries to show reasonable doubt without compromising the presumption of innocence. It allowed acknowledgment of situations where there was uncertainty, and the evidence was thin.

The simmering debate finally reached boiling point in recent years.  Following a nationwide consultation in 2021-2022, the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reforms Bill was introduced to Parliament in 2023. The legislation proposed abolishing ‘not proven’ entirely, aligning Scotland with the two-verdict system used throughout most of the world.

The bill also encompassed broader justice reforms, including modifications to jury sizes and the introduction of specialist sexual offences courts. In September 2025, after centuries of use, MSPs in Holyrood voted to abolish ‘not proven.’ The decision marked the end of one of Scotland’s oldest, and most fiercely contested, legal traditions.

From now on, Scottish juries, like the rest of the world, will return to only two verdicts. The hope is that this will make outcomes clearer, fairer, and easier for everyone to understand. Some view this as progress towards a more transparent justice system. For others, it is a loss of an important part of Scottish legal heritage. Either way, it is a landmark change. And for aspiring lawyers watching from the side-lines, it is a reminder that even the oldest legal traditions are not immune to reform.