SIR Walter Scott called it Scotland’s “bastard verdict” while First Minister Nicola Sturgeon lent her support last week to the abolition of the controversial not proven verdict.

The verdict has been a bone of ­contention for nearly 300 years and there have been a series of reviews in the last 50 years to remove it which have all proved unsuccessful.

Outlining her opposition to the verdict, Sturgeon, a qualified lawyer, said: “I do think it is time to look at the not proven verdict.

“The conviction rate for rape and sexual assault is shamefully low.

“And I think there is mounting evidence and increasingly strong arguments that the not proven verdict is a part of that. So I think it is something that it is time to look at.”

Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has promised a review and there is cross-party support too to look into the not proven verdict.

This has been welcomed by Rape Crisis Scotland which has been championing the abolition of the verdict.

They argue that statistics from 2018/2019 show that in rape and attempted rape cases 40% of acquittals were Not proven, compared with 19% of all crimes and offences.

Sandie Barton, director of operations at Rape Crisis Scotland said: “We’re pleased and encouraged to see Party leaders and candidates talking about the not proven verdict ahead of the election. The issues survivors ­experience engaging with the ­justice system are many, and there’s no quick fix to addressing these.

“However, removing the ‘easy way out’ verdict that is so widely misunderstood and open to many different interpretations would be a step forward.

“The not proven verdict is used ­disproportionately in rape and ­attempted rape cases and it is known to be confusing for juries.

“Alongside the misguided and ­victim-blaming attitudes and beliefs that many people still hold about sexual violence and a general reluctance to convict in cases of rape, there are very real fears that it’s being used as a get out, a way of avoiding convicting whilst hoping to offer the complainer a crumb of consolation.

“No-one doubts that being a jury member in a rape case is a tough task, but far from the comfort that many people believe this might ­offer to those who receive it, we have heard time and time again from ­victims, ­survivors of rape and sexual assault, that this verdict leaves more ­questions than answers, more anxiety and no closure at all.

“These are the voices that must be central to conversations going forward, as decision-makers use their power to make Scotland fairer and more just for all.”

Opposition to the verdict grew ­following the high-profile Miss M case in 2013. Miss M has campaigned on the issue since the case against the man accused of attacking her, Stephen Coxen, was found not proven. She has also met with the First Minister.

Miss M, a former St Andrews University student who cannot be named for legal reasons, said she was raped after a night out in the town by Coxen, from Bury, Greater Manchester.

She later won a civil case against him and the man who denied rape and claimed they’d had consensual sex, was ordered to pay £80,000.

Miss M said a change in the law would be particularly relevant to cases involving sexual assaults and would help “every rape survivor in Scotland”. She tweeted in 2018 on the fifth anniversary of the incident just how the not proven verdict had left her feeling.

She added: “The not proven verdict didn’t provide an end to this harrowing process and it certainly didn’t bring closure.

“It was an insult to the trauma I had been through and to the tenacity I had shown over the last two years.

“Before the trial I at least had hope. I hoped that this nightmare would end, but now it never has.

“The not proven verdict felt like I had been given a life sentence.

“At one point, I questioned what my future with a not proven verdict was, but now it is clear.

“I will spend the rest of my life fighting for other rape survivors to get justice.”

The First Minister said that in her legal days it was “imprinted” on her that the not proven verdict was one of the “totemic” aspects of

Scottish law. That view still persists among many in Scottish legal circles.

A survey carried out by the Open University found that Scots lawyers supported a system consisting of proven and not proven verdicts

Drs Lee Curley, James Munro, Lara A. Frunkin and Jim Turner surveyed 78 lawyers.

They found that lawyers’ first preference was for a binary system that consisted of only the proven and not proven verdicts, their second preference was for a system of guilty, not guilty and not proven and their third was for a guilty/not guilty system.

The finding showed that 60% ­suggested the legal system should ­retain the not proven verdict, while 25, or 33.3%, suggested abolishing it.

They considered that the not ­proven verdict better reflects the purpose of court (22.7%), that it gives jurors a way to express doubt without declaring a moral position (12%) and that it reflects the non-binary nature of life decision-making (9.3%).

Reasons for abolishing it included jury misunderstandings about the verdict (14.7%), that the function of the court is to make a binary choice (8%) and that it allows jurors a way out of making decisions about the fate of the accused (10.7%).