We fought for 33 years to abolish not proven verdict after our daughter’s murder

Joe and Kate Duffy were left devastated and stunned after the man accused of their daughter’s murder walked free from court.

They were confident Francis Auld would be convicted of murdering 19-year-old Amanda in Hamilton in 1992.

But the jury found the charges against him were not proven, one of only two acquittals that could be returned in criminal trials in Scotland.

Joe and Kate initially did not understand what the jury’s verdict meant and have now campaigned for over thirty years to have the unproven removed.

From January 1, this centuries-old verdict has entered the history books and trials in Scotland will end with the defendants found guilty or not guilty.

“There is some solace in the fact that no other family will ever have to go through this,” Kate said.

“There’s a sense of relief and vindication, but most importantly, it’s for our daughter. For Amanda.”

Amanda went missing after a night out in her hometown of Hamilton in May 1992. His body was found in a garbage dump the next day.

By any standard, the murder of the 19-year-old drama student was extremely brutal.

Among his numerous injuries was a bite to his chest, which the defense accepted was inflicted by Auld.

When the High Court jury in Glasgow returned the not proven verdict, Joe and Kate had no idea what it meant.

They listened in astonishment as the judge told Francis Auld that he had been acquitted and was free to go.

Later, in the next room, the lawyers explained that, as far as the law is concerned, not being proven is the same as being innocent. Auld was acquitted and could never be tried again.

Kate fainted.

He was taken out of the building on a stretcher and taken to the hospital.

Joe said throughout the case the police and prosecution assured the couple they had a very strong case and were expecting to get a guilty verdict.

“So when this isn’t proven, what exactly does this mean? There’s something wrong here,” you thought.

“In my eyes, it was the fear of knowing that the person responsible was still there and capable of doing it again,” Kate said.

The common interpretation of not proven was that the jury suspected the defendant was guilty but felt that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Good luck finding this in a law book. As Joe and Kate would discover, there was no written legal definition that was not proven.

Over the years, whenever juries asked questions, all the judges were able to tell them it was an acquittal as if not guilty verdict.

Research has also shown that some people think—wrongly—that if the verdict is not proven, the defendant may be retried.

This has been allowed in exceptional cases since 2011 under the double jeopardy law, but the acquittal method plays no role in this process.

Within weeks of the verdict in November 1992, Joe and Kate set up a table on a street in Hamilton, collecting tens of thousands of signatures on a petition calling for the case not to be accepted.

Joe explained: “I never understood why you could have two decisions that mean exactly the same thing.

“The only legal difference between not proven and not guilty is the spelling.

“That’s it. Why do we need them? You’re either guilty or not guilty.”

George Robertson, the Labor MP for Hamilton, believed that some juries were using the evidence as a “police” and put forward a bill in Westminster proposing the abolition of private members.

He failed to win the support of the then Conservative government and his survival has not been proven.

The Duffys viewed the bill’s failure as a stumbling block rather than a knockout blow. They set up a charity to help other families grieving over murder, premeditated murder and suicide.

Ten years ago they founded a counseling facility in Hamilton called the Manda Centre, which is the family’s nickname for Amanda.

In 2015, it was an unproven case that finally signaled the beginning of the end.

A jury used the method to acquit a man accused of raping a student at the University of St Andrews.

The victim, known as Miss M. He sued Stephen Coxen for damages in civil court and won. The sheriff admitted to being raped by Coxen.

This was said to be the first civil damages case for rape following a failed criminal investigation in almost a century.

The result would intrigue the Duffys. In 1995, Joe and Kate sued Frances Auld for Amanda’s death and won damages that were never paid.

A new abolition campaign led by Ms M and supported by Rape Crisis Scotland has argued that it has not been proven that it was disproportionately used in sexual crime cases.

They said this offered juries an “easy out” and contributed to the release of “guilty criminals”.

Their cause won support from leading politicians, including Nicola Sturgeon, who was first minister at the time.

In 2022, the SNP leadership at Holyrood proposed a series of legal reforms, including the removal of unproven ones.

Debates over the decision date back to the mid-19th century, and the arguments for and against the decision have changed little over the years.

Critics said it was confusing for juries and the public, failed to provide closure for alleged victims, and stigmatized the person on trial by pretending not to be fully exonerated.

Supporters of the decision argued that it was an important protection against wrongful convictions.

Scotland’s leading barristers – the Faculty of Advocates – put it this way: “A not proven verdict can be a safety valve for jurors who have not reached the threshold for conviction but reject the impossibility of guilt.”

But this time, repeal had cross-party support and the days of the unproven were numbered.

Scottish government bill Adopted by MSPs in September this yearMiss M and the Duffys watch from the public gallery at the Scottish Parliament.

The legislation, which was shown as a counterbalance, brought about another important change.

Scottish juries have 15 members. Until now, a guilty verdict could be given by a simple majority of 8 out of 15 votes.

Starting today, a two-thirds majority will be required. At least 10 of 15 jurors will need to support conviction.

The Scottish government said there was clear evidence that jurors were more likely to convict if they simply chose between guilty or not guilty, and that the change would ensure the system was fair and balanced.

Prosecutors at the Crown Office and campaigners for the Scottish Rape Crisis fear the change will make it harder to get convictions.

The Law Society of Scotland would prefer the unanimity or near-unanimity required by the jury system in England and Wales.

It may take years for the consequences of all this to become clear.

In 2016, prosecutors used the new double jeopardy law to seek permission to try Francis Auld a second time for Amanda’s murder.

Their applications were rejected by the courts. Auld He died of cancer in 2017.

“You learn to live with the grief part,” Kate said. “You learn to live your life in a different way.”

The couple paid tribute to Miss M and the role she played in bringing about the unproven end.

“Hats off to him because he really puts himself out there,” Joe said.

“We had many false dawns along the way, but we never gave up.

“So anyone who wants to campaign for something to change, don’t stop, keep going.

“It may have taken us 33 years, but you know, we finally got there.”