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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll