From time to time in the Fife office, we’ll be working on stories that leave a sour taste in the mouth – and sadly one of that ilk popped up in the past week.
I’m referring to the case of Dunfermline man Duncan Banks, whose mother was forced to sit through the trial of the man she was led to believe bludgeoned her son to death at his flat in Abbeyview in September 2015.
The accused, Steven Thomson, has always maintained his innocence and, following court proceedings that lasted a fortnight and fewer than three hours of jury deliberations, he walked free after a not proven verdict was delivered.
Let’s get one thing straight. I’m not casting aspersions on the case and it’s not the fact that Mr Thomson was cleared that rankles with me. Due process was followed and the jury reached a majority verdict.
However, what the story does yet again is flags up the fact that there are no winners with Scotland’s not proven verdict and we should all hope it is on borrowed time.
Mr Banks’ mother Dorothy wanted to see justice for her son, but she is effectively no nearer finding out what happened and might never get any kind of closure.
Duncan may have made a few lifestyle choices some might frown upon, but by all accounts he was a good, well-liked guy, who didn’t deserve his fate. Nobody deserves what happened to Duncan.
But the not proven verdict is not simply inadequate for the victims and their families, it does little or nothing to ‘free’ an accused in cases like these.
It only serves to stigmatise people who should always be viewed as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and almost implies a degree of culpability, where in law there is no real legal difference between not proven and not guilty outcome.
The verdict also isn’t well understood by members of the public, and can even cause confusion for jurors who already have the burden of responsibility on them.
And it must be particularly galling for police and the Crown, who have spent months building up a case against an accused, only to see a question mark left hanging.
The not proven verdict normally raises more questions than answers, it’s wholly ambigious, and it’s about time our law makers consider if indeed it serves any useful purpose whatsoever.
