Legal Definitions - not proven

Not proven is a distinctive verdict in criminal law, currently used exclusively in Scotland. While it results in an acquittal, meaning the accused person is released and cannot be tried again for the same offense, it differs significantly from a "not guilty" verdict.

A "not proven" verdict indicates that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. However, unlike a "not guilty" verdict which suggests innocence or a complete lack of credible evidence, "not proven" implies that the jury harbors a strong suspicion that the accused might have been guilty, even though the evidence presented was insufficient for a conviction.

Here are some examples illustrating how a "not proven" verdict might apply:

• Scenario: Alleged Theft

  Imagine a case where a person, let's call her Maria, is accused of stealing a valuable painting from an art gallery. Police found Maria's fingerprints on a display case near where the painting was exhibited, and she was seen leaving the gallery shortly before the theft was discovered. However, no one witnessed her actually taking the painting, and it was never found in her possession. Maria claims she was only admiring the artwork and left before the theft occurred.

  Illustration: In this situation, a jury might find the circumstantial evidence (fingerprints, presence at the scene) highly suspicious, leading them to strongly suspect Maria was involved. However, without direct proof of her taking the painting or it being found with her, they cannot be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" to return a "guilty" verdict. They are not convinced she is innocent either, resulting in a "not proven" verdict.

• Scenario: Suspected Assault

  Consider a situation where a man, Mr. Henderson, is accused of assaulting his neighbor during a heated dispute over property lines. The neighbor sustained minor bruises and testified that Mr. Henderson pushed him to the ground. However, there were no other witnesses to the altercation, and Mr. Henderson claims the neighbor tripped and fell accidentally while shouting at him, denying any physical contact. Medical evidence confirms the injuries but cannot definitively prove how they occurred.

  Illustration: The jury might find the neighbor's account plausible and Mr. Henderson's denial somewhat unconvincing, creating a strong suspicion that Mr. Henderson was indeed responsible for the assault. Yet, without corroborating evidence or a clear discrediting of Mr. Henderson's defense, they cannot be certain enough to convict. They are left with a strong suspicion but insufficient proof, leading to a "not proven" verdict.

• Scenario: Complex Financial Fraud

  A company executive, Ms. Chen, is on trial for orchestrating a complex financial fraud scheme that cost investors millions. Investigators uncovered a series of unusual transactions linked to offshore accounts controlled by Ms. Chen, and there's clear evidence of significant personal financial gain on her part. However, the prosecution struggles to present a definitive "smoking gun" document or a witness who can directly testify to Ms. Chen's explicit instructions for the fraudulent acts. The defense argues that the transactions were legitimate but poorly documented due to the company's chaotic internal structure.

  Illustration: The jury observes the highly suspicious financial activity and Ms. Chen's clear benefit, leading them to strongly suspect she was involved in the fraud. However, the lack of direct, undeniable proof linking her *personally* and *intentionally* to the fraudulent instructions means they cannot reach the high standard of "guilty." The suspicion remains, but the proof falls short, resulting in a "not proven" verdict.