Interpreting sexual offence verdicts: public attitudes to complainer anonymity and the “not proven” debate

Andrew Tickell; Seonaid Stevenson

doi:10.3366/elr.2023.0814

Interpreting sexual offence verdicts: public attitudes to complainer anonymity and the “not proven” debate

Andrew Tickell, Seonaid Stevenson

Law

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

175 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The Scottish Government has committed to abolishing the distinctive "not proven" verdict. This article shares the findings of a national opinion poll commissioned with support of GCU's Social, Criminal and Legal Justice Research Group exploring (a) public attitudes to complainer anonymity in sexual offence cases in Scotland and (b) how verdicts of "guilty", "not guilty" and "not proven" impact upon public support for reporting restrictions prohibiting complainers being identified.

While recording generally high levels of public support for the principle that complainers in sexual cases should not be identified, our polling data suggests that different acquittal labels can have a substantial impact on public support for complainer anonymity, highlighting important differences between "not guilty" and "not proven" verdicts and between male and female respondents' attitudes.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	95-104
Number of pages	10
Journal	Edinburgh Law Review
Volume	27
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3366/elr.2023.0814
Publication status	Published - Jan 2023

Keywords

complainer anonymity
sexual offences
not proven

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Cultural Studies
Law
History

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Documents and Links

10.3366/elr.2023.0814

Tickell, A. and Stevenson-McCabe, S. (2023) Interpreting sexual offence verdicts: public attitudes to complainer anonymity and the “not proven” debate
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Edinburgh University Press in Edinburgh Law Review. The Version of Record is available online at: http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/elr.2023.0814 Copyright © 2023. Edinburgh University Press.
Author accepted manuscript, 319 KB

Cite this

@article{47a55b3e7f8f40d28ec5d10696a59c3f,

title = "Interpreting sexual offence verdicts: public attitudes to complainer anonymity and the “not proven” debate",

abstract = "The Scottish Government has committed to abolishing the distinctive {"}not proven{"} verdict. This article shares the findings of a national opinion poll commissioned with support of GCU's Social, Criminal and Legal Justice Research Group exploring (a) public attitudes to complainer anonymity in sexual offence cases in Scotland and (b) how verdicts of {"}guilty{"}, {"}not guilty{"} and {"}not proven{"} impact upon public support for reporting restrictions prohibiting complainers being identified. While recording generally high levels of public support for the principle that complainers in sexual cases should not be identified, our polling data suggests that different acquittal labels can have a substantial impact on public support for complainer anonymity, highlighting important differences between {"}not guilty{"} and {"}not proven{"} verdicts and between male and female respondents' attitudes.",

keywords = "complainer anonymity, sexual offences, not proven",

author = "Andrew Tickell and Seonaid Stevenson",

year = "2023",

month = jan,

doi = "10.3366/elr.2023.0814",

language = "English",

volume = "27",

pages = "95--104",

journal = "Edinburgh Law Review",

issn = "1364-9809",

publisher = "Edinburgh University Press",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interpreting sexual offence verdicts: public attitudes to complainer anonymity and the “not proven” debate

AU - Tickell, Andrew

AU - Stevenson, Seonaid

PY - 2023/1

Y1 - 2023/1

N2 - The Scottish Government has committed to abolishing the distinctive "not proven" verdict. This article shares the findings of a national opinion poll commissioned with support of GCU's Social, Criminal and Legal Justice Research Group exploring (a) public attitudes to complainer anonymity in sexual offence cases in Scotland and (b) how verdicts of "guilty", "not guilty" and "not proven" impact upon public support for reporting restrictions prohibiting complainers being identified. While recording generally high levels of public support for the principle that complainers in sexual cases should not be identified, our polling data suggests that different acquittal labels can have a substantial impact on public support for complainer anonymity, highlighting important differences between "not guilty" and "not proven" verdicts and between male and female respondents' attitudes.

AB - The Scottish Government has committed to abolishing the distinctive "not proven" verdict. This article shares the findings of a national opinion poll commissioned with support of GCU's Social, Criminal and Legal Justice Research Group exploring (a) public attitudes to complainer anonymity in sexual offence cases in Scotland and (b) how verdicts of "guilty", "not guilty" and "not proven" impact upon public support for reporting restrictions prohibiting complainers being identified. While recording generally high levels of public support for the principle that complainers in sexual cases should not be identified, our polling data suggests that different acquittal labels can have a substantial impact on public support for complainer anonymity, highlighting important differences between "not guilty" and "not proven" verdicts and between male and female respondents' attitudes.

KW - complainer anonymity

KW - sexual offences

KW - not proven

U2 - 10.3366/elr.2023.0814

DO - 10.3366/elr.2023.0814

M3 - Article

SN - 1364-9809

VL - 27

SP - 95

EP - 104

JO - Edinburgh Law Review

JF - Edinburgh Law Review

IS - 1

ER -

Interpreting sexual offence verdicts: public attitudes to complainer anonymity and the “not proven” debate

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

UN SDGs

Documents and Links

Fingerprint

Cite this