David Cowan<\/span>Scotland home affairs correspondent<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n Joe and Kate Duffy were devastated and baffled when the man accused of their daughter’s murder walked free from court.<\/p>\n They had felt certain that Francis Auld would be found guilty of killing 19-year-old Amanda in Hamilton in 1992.<\/p>\n But a jury found the charges against him not proven – one of two verdicts of acquittal which could be returned in criminal trials in Scotland.<\/p>\n Joe and Kate did not initially understand what the jury’s verdict meant \u2013 and have now spent more than three decades campaigning for the abolition of not proven.<\/p>\n From 1 January, this centuries-old verdict has been consigned to the history books and Scottish trials will end with the accused being found either guilty or not guilty.<\/p>\n “There’s some solace in the fact that no other family will have to go through this,” said Kate.<\/p>\n “There’s relief and a feeling of vindication – but most importantly, it’s for our daughter. It’s for Amanda.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Amanda had gone missing after a night out in her hometown of Hamilton in May 1992. Her body was found on waste ground the next day.<\/p>\n By any standards, the murder of the 19-year-old drama student had been exceptionally brutal.<\/p>\n Her numerous injuries included a bite on her breast which the defence agreed had been inflicted by Auld.<\/p>\n When the jury at the High Court in Glasgow announced the not proven verdict, Joe and Kate had no idea what it meant.<\/p>\n They listened in astonishment as the judge told Francis Auld he had been acquitted and was free to go.<\/p>\n Afterwards, in a side room, lawyers explained that in the eyes of the law, not proven was exactly the same as not guilty. Auld had been cleared and could never be tried again.<\/p>\n Kate fainted. <\/p>\n She was carried from the building on a stretcher and taken to hospital.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Joe said that throughout the case the police and prosecution had assured the couple that they had a very strong case and expected to get a guilty verdict.<\/p>\n “So when it was not proven, you were like, what exactly does that mean? There’s something wrong here.”<\/p>\n “It was the fear of knowing that the person who was responsible, in my eyes, was still out there and capable of doing it again,” said Kate.<\/p>\n A common interpretation of not proven was that the jury suspected the accused was guilty, but felt the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n Good luck finding that in a law book. As Joe and Kate were to discover, there was no written legal definition of not proven.<\/p>\n Over the years, whenever juries asked, all judges could tell them was that it was a verdict of acquittal, just like not guilty.<\/p>\n Research has also shown that some people thought – incorrectly – that the accused could be tried again if the verdict was not proven.<\/p>\n That has been allowed in exceptional circumstances since 2011 under double jeopardy legislation, but the method of acquittal plays no part in that process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Within weeks of the verdict in November 1992, Joe and Kate had set up a table in a street in Hamilton, gathering tens of thousands of signatures for a petition calling for not proven to go.<\/p>\n Joe explained: “I’ve never understood why you can have two verdicts which mean exactly the same thing.<\/p>\n “The only difference in law between not proven and not guilty is spelling.<\/p>\n “That’s it. Why do we need them? Either you’re guilty or not guilty.”<\/p>\n Hamilton’s Labour MP George Robertson believed some juries were using not proven as a “cop out” and put forward a private members’ bill at Westminster proposing abolition.<\/p>\n He failed to win the backing of the then Conservative government and not proven survived.<\/p>\n The Duffys regarded the bill’s failure as a stumbling block rather than a knockout blow. They set up a charity to help other families bereaved by murder, culpable homicide and suicide.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Ten years ago they established a counselling facility in Hamilton called the Manda Centre, the family’s nickname for Amanda.<\/p>\n It was a case in 2015 that finally signalled the beginning of the end for not proven.<\/p>\n A jury used it when they cleared a man accused of raping a student at St Andrews University.<\/p>\n The victim, known as Miss M, sued Stephen Coxen for damages in a civil court and won<\/a>. The sheriff accepted she had been raped by Coxen.<\/p>\n It was said to be the first civil damages action for rape following an unsuccessful criminal prosecution in almost a century.<\/p>\n The outcome would have struck a chord with the Duffys. In 1995, Joe and Kate had sued Frances Auld over Amanda’s death and won damages – which were never paid.<\/p>\n A new campaign for abolition, led by Miss M and backed by Rape Crisis Scotland, argued that not proven was used disproportionately in sexual offence cases.<\/p>\n They said it offered juries “an easy out” and contributed to “guilty people” walking free.<\/p>\n Their case won support from leading politicians, including Nicola Sturgeon, who was first minister at the time.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n In 2022, the SNP administration at Holyrood proposed a raft of legal reforms, including the removal of not proven.<\/p>\n Controversy over the verdict dates back to the mid-19th Century and the arguments for and against have changed very little over the years.<\/p>\n Critics said it was confusing for juries and the public, failed to provide closure for alleged victims, and stigmatized the person on trial by appearing not to clear them completely.<\/p>\n Supporters of the verdict argued that it was an important safeguard against wrongful convictions.<\/p>\n Scotland’s top lawyers – the Faculty of Advocates – put it this way: “The not proven verdict may be a safety valve for jurors who have not reached the threshold for conviction but reject the impossibility of guilt.”<\/p>\n But this time, abolition had cross-party support and not proven’s days were numbered.<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/static.files.bbci.co.uk\/bbcdotcom\/web\/20251210-151139-37baf2dfdd-web-2.36.1-1\/grey-placeholder.png\")
![\"Duffy](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/news\/480\/cpsprodpb\/3c2b\/live\/87b12b70-e4a4-11f0-9890-3187c4f9b06f.jpg.webp\")
Duffy family<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n![\"Joe](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/news\/480\/cpsprodpb\/5648\/live\/162b47b0-e4a4-11f0-9890-3187c4f9b06f.jpg.webp\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/news\/480\/cpsprodpb\/4fe7\/live\/c1ed12d0-e4d2-11f0-8a85-09a10e143343.jpg.webp\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/news\/480\/cpsprodpb\/1ad7\/live\/db8f5340-e4a7-11f0-aae2-2191c0e48a3b.png.webp\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\nThe beginning of the end<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/ichef.bbci.co.uk\/news\/480\/cpsprodpb\/130c\/live\/2e051390-e57e-11f0-b67b-690eb873de1b.jpg.webp\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n