NOT PROVEN
SIR,—In practice there is really no difference— except in nomenclature—between a verdict of " not guilty " and one of " not proven." if a jury in England brought in a verdict of " not proven " it would operate in law as one of "not guilty." A verdict of " not proven" really throws the responsibility for the verdict back upon the Judge who must— as the law stands—acquit the defendant. On the other hand if the verdict is " not guilty " the defendant is de facto acquitted by the jury. A verdict of " not proven " acquits the defendant in both law and fact whereas one of " not guilty " acquits solely on the facts. It follows that of the two verdicts the one of " not proven " is definitely more favourable to the defendant. Mr. Smith's statement that an English jury may convict on the evidence of a single witness is untenable. Evidence needs corroboration and a single witness cannot corroborate himself. There must be a second witness to testify to the corroborating facts. For example, evidence of arrest may be quite sufficient corroborative evidence but this needs a witness besides the prosecutor—say a police or warrant officer.— Yours faithfully,
Previous page
