header-logo header-logo

Right of reply: Back to unanimity?

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

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Firm promotes London international arbitration specialist to partnership

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Firm bolsters restructuring practice with senior London hires

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
back-to-top-scroll