Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

to determining whether the jury could have been satisfied beyondreasonable doubt”.7.3.8 The Sutherland Committee considered that the High Court, in its appellatecapacity, should be able to overturn a jury’s verdict where that verdict wasunreasonable and had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Even allowing forthe jury’s advantage over an appeal court in having seen and heard thewitnesses, there could, it was reasoned, be exceptional cases where it would bedifficult to understand how “any reasonable jury could not have entertained atleast a reasonable doubt” 20 . Following the Committee’s recommendations, thelegislation was amended to provide that, although the single ground for appealwould be that there had been a miscarriage of justice, this would occur wherethe jury had returned a verdict which no reasonable jury, properly directed,could have returned.7.3.9 The High Court has generally been cautious before allowing appeals on thebasis of a jury’s verdict being deemed unreasonable. It has stressed that it isnot sufficient that the court itself may have entertained a reasonable doubt 21 .This is consistent with the view that an appeal court, consisting of three ormore lawyers, however wise they may perceive themselves to be, should beslow to reverse a decision of fact taken by a fifteen person jury, with all itscollective experience of life, especially in its own locality.20 para 2.6721 King v HM Advocate 1999 JC 226; McDonald v HM Advocate 2010 SCCR 619293