Joe and Kate Duffy were devastated and confused when the man accused of murdering their daughter walked free from court. They were convinced that Francis Auld would be found guilty of killing 19-year-old Amanda in Hamilton in 1992. However, the jury returned a 'not proven' verdict - an acquittal option in Scotland. Initially unclear about its meaning, the Duffys have spent over three decades advocating for its abolition. As of January 1st, this antiquated verdict has been retired, and Scottish trials will only conclude with verdicts of guilty or not guilty.
"There's some solace in the fact that no other family will have to go through this," remarked Kate. "There's relief and a feeling of vindication - but most importantly, it's for our daughter. It's for Amanda."
Amanda disappeared after a night out in her hometown of Hamilton in May 1992. Her body was discovered on waste ground the following day, having suffered numerous brutal injuries, including a bite on her breast, which the defense acknowledged was inflicted by Auld. When the jury issued the 'not proven' verdict at the High Court in Glasgow, the Duffys were stunned. The judge declared Auld acquitted and free, leaving the Duffys in disbelief. Kate, overwhelmed, fainted and was escorted to the hospital.
Throughout the trial, police and prosecution assured the couple of a strong case expected to result in a guilty verdict. Joe recounted, "So when it was not proven, you were like, what exactly does that mean? There's something wrong here." Kate added, "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." The 'not proven' verdict often implies that the jury suspects guilt but finds the evidence insufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, although this interpretation lacks any formal legal definition. Research indicated that some people wrongly believed a 'not proven' verdict allowed for retrial, a misconception only corrected under double jeopardy laws since 2011.
Following the verdict in November 1992, Joe and Kate established a table in Hamilton to collect signatures for a petition against 'not proven,' gathering tens of thousands in support. Joe argued, "I've never understood why you can have two verdicts which mean exactly the same thing. The only difference in law between not proven and not guilty is spelling. That's it. Why do we need them? Either you're guilty or not guilty." Hamilton's Labour MP George Robertson, who suspected that some juries used 'not proven' as a "cop out," introduced a private members' bill at Westminster for its abolition, although he did not succeed in gaining sufficient backing.