The thing with the "not proven" verdict is that it does leave a cloud of suspicion over you for the rest of your life. For some as horrendous as raping a six year old, this not something to be taken lightly. And if "beyond reasonable doubt" is not required then it's very easily inflicted.
I totally agree.
'Not Proven' strikes me as quite a sinister verdict, whereby you want to convict someone, but haven't the evidence. But you want to ensure he or she lives under a cloud of suspicion for the rest of their life.
'Not Guilty' isn't the same as 'Entirely Innocent' in its normal English meaning.
But the law regarding us as innocent until proven guilty is a tried and trusted formula.
Of course sexual crimes are particularly difficult, because they are often committed when only the defendant and the victim were present, with no other witnesses.
And that is why defendants should not have an automatic right to anonymity.
One accusation may be false, but the weight of evidence increases with the number of accusers.
In the Le Vell case there didn't appear to be any other accusers.