‘Split Verdicts’ in Scotland: A Judicial Survey

(2010) 14/2 Edinburgh Law Review 225-235

Posted: 14 Oct 2020

See all articles by Thomas Lundmark

Thomas Lundmark

University of Hull - School of Law; University of Münster

Date Written: April 1, 2010


This article sketches the results of a modest study undertaken to determine the extent to which Scottish judges disagree with jury verdicts of guilty. The central finding is that only 18 out of 109 judges, who together had presided over some 16,500 trials, reported that they had presided over a trial in which the jury voted to convict someone whom they would not themselves have convicted. After setting out the purposes and methodology of the survey (part A), the article briefly describes the Scottish court and jury system (part B), including three of its peculiarities: the requirement of corroboration (incriminating evidence from two independent sources), the availability of the “not proven” verdict in addition to “guilty” and “not guilty”, and the use of a fifteen-member jury with majority voting. The next section (part C) summarises the judges’ responses and explains why a few were excluded from the study. The article ends (part …

Suggested Citation

Lundmark, Thomas, ‘Split Verdicts’ in Scotland: A Judicial Survey (April 1, 2010). (2010) 14/2 Edinburgh Law Review 225-235, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3679812

Thomas Lundmark (Contact Author)

University of Hull - School of Law ( email )

University of Hull
Hull, HU6 7RX
United Kingdom

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics