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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll