Alex Salmond - court case concluded

[Vorpal]

I don't think 'not proven' is really necessary, but it's not the same as innocence, in any case. A civil suit could potentially still find against him, if one were brought.

[Will]

Not proven makes a great deal of sense, if on the balance of probabilities, he is guilty, but there is insufficient evidence to convict him.

If there is insufficient evidence to convict somebody then they are innocent in my opinion.

I'm not surprised that nearly all other countries don't have the not proven verdict available.

All the charges against Mr Salmond were not proven because the evidence was not good enough to convict. I see no good reason to single out one of them with another type of verdict.

In isolation, the Not Proven verdict does not make a lot of sense. However, when you combine it with the corroboration requirement then it does make sense.

Kenny MacAskill (one of Alex Salmonds closest allies) was the Justice Secretary under Alex Salmond (2007-2014). He has been in favour of removing the corroboration requirement:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/ ... ule-338972

Had he been successful, Alex Salmond could have been found guilty on the Not Proven charge.

Will

[Psamathe]

I don't appreciate the legal aspects of a "Not Proven" finding but I think a major problem with it is the public interpretation which seems "variable" and some seem to use it to claim the dependent was likely guilty but there was not enough evidence to prove it ... so they talk about the case assuming it was a sort of guilty'ish verdict.

Maybe the Scottish legal system should undertake a bit of an education drive. Maybe those in Scotland understand the verdict better but I wonder if at least English public don't (as I don't) and as we are currently closely aligned we should understand the finding better so we don't get the "(s)he was probably found guilty but there was a technical problem preventing such a finding (like evidence)".

Ian

[Carlton green]

. Makes me wonder about the jury system when applied to popular figures, but I am a cynic and appreciate that I don’t know all the details.

I think you missed out 'wondering' about the people who brought the charges and why?
I don’t know all the details either but It looks like the rumours were right and the reason people subscribed to crowdfunding.

I didn’t miss it out as my interest isn’t in the motives for the prosecution but rather whether he is both in some way culpable and has escaped justice. IMHO he’s a robust character who nether needs nor deserves special (favourable) treatment but my fear is that that is what he has in some way got.

When the likes of Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris get found out and historically no one complained about them because the establishment would judge against the victims (people feared not being believed, etc.) When Priests have been similarly misbehaving with anyone they had power over too. Well, makes you wonder or IMHO it certainly should.

As a generalisation some men will force themselves on others including women, children and sometimes even other men, assault of a woman should been seen as the tip of the iceberg because IMHO much abuse goes both unrecognised and unreported.

From what I see of the SNP support it has a substantial core of devotees who would support their old leader regardless and pump their last penny into his legal team. As for the motives of the prosecution being political in some way that is outside of my knowledge, but what is true is that sufficient evidence was available and linked to him to allow the prosecution of a well know public figure - which is something that is not done lightly.

[Paulatic]

Whilst there seems to be a lot of query around the Scottish legal system can I ask.
In England would this case have reached the courts? Would the Prosecutor have looked at the evidence and If decided there wasn’t a case and that would have been the last we would hear of it

[Carlton green]

Whilst there seems to be a lot of query around the Scottish legal system can I ask.
In England would this case have reached the courts? Would the Prosecutor have looked at the evidence and If decided there wasn’t a case and that would have been the last we would hear of it

Not being a legal expert I’m not in a position to answer that question. However I find it hard to believe that the English and Scottish legal systems are so different that this case wouldn’t have ended up before the Courts here too. Strangely - although it obviously isn’t possible - earlier today I was thinking that in this instance a trial outside of Scotland would likely be less swayed or influenced. Guilty as charged? Well I’d have thought that likely and I’m doubtful about the verdict. To my mind he’s got off lightly.

[Paulatic]

Whilst there seems to be a lot of query around the Scottish legal system can I ask.
In England would this case have reached the courts? Would the Prosecutor have looked at the evidence and If decided there wasn’t a case and that would have been the last we would hear of it

Not being a legal expert I’m not in a position to answer that question. However I find it hard to believe that the English and Scottish legal systems are so different that this case wouldn’t have ended up before the Courts here too. Strangely - although it obviously isn’t possible - earlier today I was thinking that in this instance a trial outside of Scotland would likely be less swayed or influenced. Guilty as charged? Well I’d have thought that likely and I’m doubtful about the verdict. To my mind he’s got off lightly.

It’s OK you don’t have to be an expert to reach your verdict. A quick look through your posting history is enough to signal where you’re coming from.

[Bonefishblues]

Posts removed.

Please, no sniping.

Thanks.

To vorp:
Express disappointment in one's charges.

"The moderator vorped at the fractious posters and deleted their posts"

[PH]

Defence costs were, I believe, crowd funded and no doubt he had the best legal team whereas the crown prosecuting service probably didn’t. I don’t believe that justice is served well by having significantly different ability levels in the prosecution and defence teams.

I'm pretty sure the crowdfunding was to support the judicial review over the Scottish government's handling of the case. Regardless of the criminal case, the actions of the Scottish government were wrong and it was right for there to be a judicial review.
I'm not sure about legal crowdfunding at all, but one the need for a judicial review had been established, it's a shame the cost should fall on an individual, so I can accept the shared funding. I'd be far less accepting if crown funding had been used for a criminal defense.

[PH]

I don't think 'not proven' is really necessary, but it's not the same as innocence, in any case. A civil suit could potentially still find against him, if one were brought.

I don't really understand it, it made more sense when it was a simple two verdict system, Proven and Not Proven, having a not sure verdict just opens up the whole concept of no smoke without fire, though we all know there often is.

[Carlton green]

I don't think 'not proven' is really necessary, but it's not the same as innocence, in any case. A civil suit could potentially still find against him, if one were brought.

I don't really understand it, it made more sense when it was a simple two verdict system, Proven and Not Proven, having a not sure verdict just opens up the whole concept of no smoke without fire, though we all know there often is.

Personally I like the not proven verdict / concept because it allows for realism, you can strongly suspect that someone is guilty as charged but through lack of sufficient evidence no offence is sufficiently proven to have taken place. There is some pressure to do away with that verdict but the result will be guilty people being acquitted and innocent people being convicted, best just to say ‘not proven’ and to leave the way open to future events and information.

[Oldjohnw]

I don't think 'not proven' is really necessary, but it's not the same as innocence, in any case. A civil suit could potentially still find against him, if one were brought.

I don't really understand it, it made more sense when it was a simple two verdict system, Proven and Not Proven, having a not sure verdict just opens up the whole concept of no smoke without fire, though we all know there often is.

Personally I like the not proven verdict / concept because it allows for realism, you can strongly suspect that someone is guilty as charged but through lack of sufficient evidence no offence is sufficiently proven to have taken place. There is some pressure to do away with that verdict but the result will be guilty people being acquitted and innocent people being convicted, best just to say ‘not proven’ and to leave the way open to future events and information.

Or leave an innocent person having s cloud over their head for ever.

[Will]

I don't think 'not proven' is really necessary, but it's not the same as innocence, in any case. A civil suit could potentially still find against him, if one were brought.

I don't really understand it, it made more sense when it was a simple two verdict system, Proven and Not Proven, having a not sure verdict just opens up the whole concept of no smoke without fire, though we all know there often is.

Scottish juries consist of 15 members and a guilty verdict requires a minimum of 8 votes. If the number of jurors drops, the minimum requirement of 8 votes to convict still stands. In the Alex Salmond case, 2 jurors dropped out (leaving 13 jurors) - This means that it was possible for there to be a majority (7) in favour of a guilty verdict and a minority (6) against, but he could still not have been convicted. I would not expect the jury to be keen on spending the next week cooped up in the jury room (a la "12 Angry Men" ) during the Coronavirus outbreak, so a compromise verdict of Not Proven might have had enough support to carry the day.

I would not be surprised if there is a civil case on that one charge.

Will

[carpetcleaner]

Whilst there seems to be a lot of query around the Scottish legal system can I ask.
In England would this case have reached the courts? Would the Prosecutor have looked at the evidence and If decided there wasn’t a case and that would have been the last we would hear of it

Not being a legal expert I’m not in a position to answer that question. However I find it hard to believe that the English and Scottish legal systems are so different that this case wouldn’t have ended up before the Courts here too. Strangely - although it obviously isn’t possible - earlier today I was thinking that in this instance a trial outside of Scotland would likely be less swayed or influenced. Guilty as charged? Well I’d have thought that likely and I’m doubtful about the verdict. To my mind he’s got off lightly.

Before or during the trial I had no idea if he was guilty or not.

I now accept his total innocence as the jurors said he wasn't guilty of wrongdoing, they are the ones who had the time to consider the evidence and I know of no reason why the jurors would want to 'go lightly' on him.

[Oldjohnw]

Whilst there seems to be a lot of query around the Scottish legal system can I ask.
In England would this case have reached the courts? Would the Prosecutor have looked at the evidence and If decided there wasn’t a case and that would have been the last we would hear of it

Not being a legal expert I’m not in a position to answer that question. However I find it hard to believe that the English and Scottish legal systems are so different that this case wouldn’t have ended up before the Courts here too. Strangely - although it obviously isn’t possible - earlier today I was thinking that in this instance a trial outside of Scotland would likely be less swayed or influenced. Guilty as charged? Well I’d have thought that likely and I’m doubtful about the verdict. To my mind he’s got off lightly.

Before or during the trial I had no idea if he was guilty or not.

I now accept his total innocence as the jurors said he wasn't guilty of wrongdoing, they are the ones who had the time to consider the evidence and I know of no reason why the jurors would want to 'go lightly' on him.

More than happy to agree with the Carpetcleaner. As Paulatic said, it is likely that in England it would never even have got to court.