By Sally Hind

Copyright dailyrecord

Victims denied justice for decades under Scotland’s not proven verdict watched as it was finally abolished today. The father of Amanda Duffy – who saw the man accused of murdering his 19-year-old daughter walk free on the controversial verdict more than 30 years ago – was in the Scottish Parliament to witness the historic moment it was scrapped after three decades of campaigning. MSPs voted through the landmark justice reform bill, rubber-stamping the axing of the verdict – meaning jurors will no longer have three options when it comes to deciding the fate of defendants at criminal trials. Scotland was unique in the world as juries could decide to find someone guilty, not guilty, or not proven. But victims had long described it as a “get-out” for juries, letting the guilty go free. Amanda Duffy’s dad Joe told the Record: “I’m absolutely delighted for everybody involved in the criminal justice process, but especially for ourselves as we campaigned for so long. “Did I ever see it happening? I was hoping it would happen in my lifetime. Thankfully I’ve got there and hopefully it helps other people.” Not proven finally came to an end under the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill, which cleared its final hurdle at Holyrood thanks to support from SNP, Green and Lib Dem MSPs. Not proven goes back to the 17th century. There is no specific definition of the verdict, or its difference from not guilty, but the legal implications are the same – the accused is acquitted and is innocent in the eyes of the law. A 2019 study found removing not proven might incline more jurors towards a guilty verdict in some trials, but the Scottish Government has won cross-party support for abolition after a consultation found most wanted it axed. Parliament met on Tuesday for final debates on amendments to the Bill before a final vote on Wednesday afternoon, which paved the way for it to become law. In an exclusive interview with the Record last week, justice secretary Angela Constance praised our in championing families fighting for the “long overdue” abolition, saying scrapping it would be “in the interests of justice”. Constance said there was now hard evidence that not proven had allowed juries to “compromise” and deliver a verdict the public do not trust. She vowed that getting rid of it would be a “quick” process and a first priority when the bill is passed. The Bill also rubber-stamped an important change to Scotland’s rules on majority verdicts, after defence lawyers argued that scrapping the verdict would remove a safeguard against miscarriages of justice. Prior to the vote, a simple majority was required for a guilty verdict – eight out of 15 jurors. That will now change to 10 out of 15. Previous proposals to reduce jury size from 15 to 12 in criminal trials were rejected at stage two of the Bill and ministers also dropped plans for juryless rape trials following criticism from lawyers and judges. The Bill will see trauma-informed practice embedded across the system to avoid victims being re-traumatised by the legal process. It will improve the Victim Notification Scheme and establish an independent Victims and Witnesses Commissioner for Scotland to champion their rights. The move to abolish not proven has been met with residence from certain areas of the justice community, who fear scrapping it could lead to miscarriages of justice. The Law Society of Scotland previously expressed “deep concern” over abolishing the verdict and last week told the Record it “continues to have concerns about the current proposals around jury size and majorities”. Francis Auld was acquitted of murdering student Amanda Duffy, 19, on a not proven verdict after her body was found on waste ground in Hamilton. The trial sparked a national debate around the verdict and double jeopardy rules before Amanda’s parents sued Auld in civil court in 1995. Auld did not contest the lawsuit, which found him to be responsible for her death, and the couple were awarded £50,000 – which wasn’t paid before Auld died in 2017. Amanda’s dad Joe, who set up The Manda Centre in his daughter’s memory, said: “Then, we had no idea what not proven actually meant. I don’t think anybody still does know what it means. So that was part of the reason we wanted it abolished. “There was a middle ground that shouldn’t be there. “You’re either guilty or not guilty. You deserve that. One or the other. “I think one of my favourite phrases over the last few days is, I’ve seen an awful lot of false dawns, that this was going to happen, that that was going to happen. “In the campaign we produced hundred of thousands of signatures and petitions and it didn’t go ahead so for this to be going away today, I’m absolutely delighted.” Joe said he thinks the reason the abolition took so long was due to a “lack of political willpower” as well as “far too much influence from certain areas of the justice community”. He said: “ I think there has been far too much influence on what’s said and how it’s done. It’s only now I would say – and congratulations to this present Government in particular – that they are putting the victims right at the centre, as apposed to being secondary.” Stewart Handling has -campaigned against the verdict since Callum Owens, the man who admitted supplying the ecstasy pill that killed his daughter Grace, 13, walked free on not proven in 2020 after being on trial for culpable homicide. The dad, from Irvine, Ayrshire, was also in Parliament to see the verdict abolished. He said: “I’d say today is bittersweet. “It doesn’t bring Grace back, but it’s in the interest of all victims irrespective of what the case is. There’s a much greater chance of justice. “I think it felt like Everest at one point. It’s something you could just dream about. But I’m so pleased the Scottish Government have been really bold here. “Whether you support them or you don’t support them – I really support this. “I watched the debate and it was great that the party politics weren’t there. I just saw people fighting for justice and it was brilliant to watch. “I think not proven was a safeguard, but that safeguard became a hurdle for justice where a lot of people who are guilty are potentially found not proven. “Today I’m thinking of others like Joe Duffy. He campaigned for 33 years and that guy is inspirational to me personally. “All I wanted was the truth from day one.” Following a not proven verdict in a criminal trial in 2015, Miss M successfully sued a man she had accused of rape in the civil courts, in what was the first civil damages action for rape following an unsuccessful criminal prosecution in almost 100 years. In 2022/23, 48 per cent of rape and attempted rape cases resulted in convictions, the lowest rate for any type of crime, compared to an overall conviction rate of 88%. Not Proven made up 61% of rape and attempted rape acquittals over the period, compared to an overall rate of 22% for all criminal offences. Speaking after the vote, Miss M said: “When I started this campaign to remove the not proven verdict alongside Rape Crisis Scotland, the dream was just not to remove the not proven verdict but to highlight how misunderstood and damaging it was. “Throughout the campaign, people were shocked to hear I’d have preferred a not guilty verdict over a not proven verdict, but I’ve always said there is no difference between not proven and not guilty; at least with a not guilty verdict, the jury make a decision. “Today the removal of the not proven verdict has given survivors and their families back their voice. “To know that another rape victim isn’t going to experience what I had to go through after my criminal trial ended is the very reason I’ve invested so much time and energy into this campaign.”