DONALD Findlay QC, one of Scotland's most flamboyant and outspoken defence lawyers, has angered the families of murder victims over plans to publish a book examining the history of the controversial not proven verdict.
News of the book by the high-profile legal figure, who is considered to be among the most ardent supporters of the so-called "third verdict", comes as an MSP is drawing up proposals to have the not proven option scrapped in Scottish courts.
Findlay's book and the private member's bill being worked on by Labour MSP Michael McMahon are due to be completed later this year.
With the two almost certain to coincide, the issue is in line to become the subject of fierce debate in the coming months.
But the news that Findlay is to publish a text on the not proven verdict last night fuelled outrage among victims' families and led to fresh calls for urgent reform of the Scottish three-verdict system.
Joe Duffy, who saw the man accused of killing his teenage daughter Amanda walk free from court in 1992 after Findlay successfully argued for a not proven verdict, said the advocate and other defence lawyers had a "vested interest" in retaining the status quo.
He warned the Scottish legal system had still to be "brought into the 20th century, never mind the 21st".
Duffy said: "Donald Findlay's views on this issue are very well known and if I had two chances to get my client off I wouldn't want to scrap it either. His ratio of securing not proven verdicts must be very high and so he's obviously got a vested interest in retaining it.
But does he want to retain it for personal reasons or for the good of the legal system?"
He added: "I've got a very dim view of anyone who supports the not proven verdict.
The third verdict means nothing more than an acquittal."
Findlay said the book, which is to be released by Edinburghbased publishing house Black And White and is expected to be titled Not Proven, was "not meant to be a great forensic analysis". He said: "It will be a straight history, perhaps illustrated with some examples. It would say something about how the legal system works."
He explained the book was expected to be written and published later this year, following the completion of the Jodi Jones murder trial.
Findlay is the defence lawyer of Luke Mitchell, the 16-year-old accused.
He stood by his views on retaining the not proven option, saying it would be a "backward step" to get rid of it and described the controversial verdict as being "attended with unnecessary emotion".
Findlay added: "I think that somehow people think that a not guilty verdict means the person didn't do it. It's nothing of the sort.
"If the verdict was done away with there would be many more acquittals. The not proven verdict is attended with, I believe, unnecessary emotion."
Findlay has made his name by securing acquittals in some of the most controversial cases. In 1998, in the most expensive trial held in a Scottish court - since overtaken by Lockerbie - his defence assisted to ensure that leading gangland figure Thomas McGraw walked free on a not proven verdict on cannabis smuggling charges.
McGraw, who stood trial with 11 others, was accused of funding a major drug-running operation between Morocco and Scotland.
But his most controversial success was in 1992 when he successfully defended Francis Auld, who had been charged with the murder of 19-year-old Amanda Duffy. Despite an apparent raft of evidence against him, including his teeth marks on her body, Auld secured a not proven verdict.
The case, which prompted the most concerted campaign ever to scrap Scotland's not proven verdict, has led to plans by Labour MSP McMahon to draft a bill to scrap the verdict.
McMahon said: "The present system leaves the person who was charged of the crime without exoneration and it leaves the victim or their family feeling that no justice has been done. That is an unsatisfactory situation and must be changed."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article