header-logo header-logo

11 October 2024 / Nisha Waller , Naïma Sakande
Issue: 8089 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , In Court
printer mail-detail

Right of reply: Back to unanimity?

192567
Nisha Waller & Naïma Sakande put the case for abolishing majority jury verdicts

Our research* on the racist and classist origins of majority jury verdicts considers why the principle of unanimity was abandoned in 1967 and explores the current implications of majority verdicts. In his recent NLJ article, Professor Michael Zander KC challenged our conclusion that racism and classism influenced the introduction of majority jury verdicts in England and Wales, and rejected our proposal to restore the principle of unanimity (see ‘Zander’s reflections’ (NLJ, 5 July 2024). Although we welcome Professor Zander’s response, as argument and counterargument only produce better knowledge, we would like to respond.

Do majority verdicts have racist & classist roots?

Yes. We considered findings covering extensive groups of archival material in coming to this conclusion. First, we looked at material covering race relations and the political climate in 1960s Britain. This material revealed a backdrop of public anxieties about immigration and the rise of anti-racist activism, with governments introducing successive legislation

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
back-to-top-scroll