As I understand it, "not proven" is effectively just the same as "innocent". See e.g.: http://dukeundergraduatelawmagazine.org/2018/12/06/scotlands-three-verdi

As I understand it, "not proven" is effectively just the same as "innocent". See e.g.: http://dukeundergraduatelawmagazine.org/2018/12/06/scotlands-three-verdict-system-a-look-into-not-proven/ http://dukeundergraduatelawmagazine.org/2018/12/06/scotlands... I have the impression it's mostly there to protect against wrongful convictions, which seems very different from the "it doesnt matter what actually happened, but what lawyers can prove" what the comment I replied to said. The EU ruling here isn't a criminal trail with a jury system anyway, so quite different in any case.