The introduction of majority verdicts in criminal trials in England and Wales was partly motivated by a desire to dilute the influence of minority ethnic people and the labouring classes serving on juries, according to research.
The study, by the miscarriage of justice charity Appeal, said that while the widely accepted narrative for allowing majority verdicts – introduced by parliament in 1967 – as opposed to unanimous verdicts, was that it would prevent jury “nobbling” (corruption), there was another reason that was more disreputable.
Delving into government files and other archival materials, the authors of the report, published in the journal Race & Class, found little evidence that “nobbling” was widespread, but that “an increase in eligible jurors from different racial and class backgrounds led to a perceived decline in the ‘calibre’ of jurors – reflective of wider public anxieties about Commonwealth immigration, Black Power and white disenfranchisement”.
The report, Majority Jury Verdicts in England and Wales: A Vestige of White Supremacy?, draws parallels with the 2020 landmark case in the US, Ramos v Louisiana, that outlawed majority verdicts for serious crimes amid recognition of their racist origins, including evidence that they were introduced in Louisiana in 1898 to suppress the votes of black jurors following the abolition of slavery.
In the US, where Oregon was the only other state that allowed majority verdicts at the time of the supreme court ruling, it is argued that majority verdicts remove a safeguard against wrongful convictions, the authors said. By contrast, in the UK, it has been argued that majority verdicts could safeguard against juror bias by preventing one or two prejudiced jurors from dictating decision-making.
Appeal said wrongful convictions by majority verdicts, which allow up to two jurors out of 12 to dissent or one where there are 10 or 11 jurors, in England and Wales included the cases of Andrew Malkinson and Winston Trew, one of the Oval Four.
Nisha Waller of Appeal, who co-authored the report with Naima Sakande, said: “The references to women, racialised minority people and the working class as less capable of performing jury service are not prejudicial comments of the past – they are a relic in today’s jury system.
“While juries are hailed as the fairest component of the legal system, restrictions on doing research with real juries in real cases prevents a definitive assessment of their fairness.
“Our commitment to the good value of juries does not exempt them from rigorous scrutiny. The potential silencing of certain jurors’ voices through majority convictions should be a concern for us all. Unless we are saying that dissenting jurors are always unreasonable, their votes inherently represent reasonable doubt.”
In 1963, the Home Office set up the departmental committee on jury service (“the Morris committee”) at a time when juror eligibility depended on householder status but national property revaluations had recently qualified people from more diverse backgrounds for that status, the report says.
“Written evidence to the committee was submitted from many civil society organisations, trade unions, legal membership bodies, government departments and individuals, many of whom were concerned that an expanded juror pool, which included the ‘labouring classes’, immigrants and ‘coloureds’, would taint the ‘calibre’ of decision-making and educational aptitude necessary for jury duty,” the authors write.
In the House of Commons, MPs variously expressed support for the end of the requirement of unanimity because of the end of the “middle-class, middle-brain jury” and “a situation where everyone … good, bad or indifferent, is a possible juror”.
The report said majority verdicts accounted for about 15% of annual convictions after a crown court trial, “meaning a significant number of defendants are convicted each year where at least one juror was not sure of their guilt”.
Trew, an expert adviser to the project and who was “fitted up” by a racist police officer, said he was fascinated by its findings. “I have since wondered whether the 10-2 majority verdict was the result of the two black jurors on our jury not accepting the police’s untrue version of events,” he said. “I suppose I’ll never know for sure.”