A recent research study by the miscarriage of justice charity, Appeal, reveals that the introduction of majority verdicts in criminal trials in England and Wales in 1967 was partly driven by a desire to diminish the influence of minority ethnic individuals and the working class serving on juries. While the commonly accepted rationale for majority verdicts was to prevent jury “nobbling” (corruption), the study contends that a more disreputable motive was at play.
Examining government files and archival materials, the report found limited evidence of widespread jury tampering. Instead, the study suggests that an increase in eligible jurors from different racial and class backgrounds was perceived as a decline in the ‘calibre’ of jurors, reflecting wider public concerns about Commonwealth immigration, Black Power, and white disenfranchisement.
The report draws parallels with the 2020 US case, Ramos v Louisiana, which outlawed majority verdicts, citing their racist origins. Majority verdicts were introduced in Louisiana in 1898 to suppress the votes of black jurors after the abolition of slavery.
While some argue that majority verdicts in the US remove safeguards against wrongful convictions, the UK perspective has been that they might prevent juror bias by averting decisions influenced by one or two prejudiced jurors. The study suggests that wrongful convictions by majority verdicts in England and Wales have included cases such as Andrew Malkinson and Winston Trew.
Nisha Waller of Appeal emphasized concerns about the potential silencing of certain jurors’ voices through majority convictions. The study sheds light on historical perceptions of racial and class biases in the jury system, prompting calls for rigorous scrutiny and consideration of dissenting jurors’ perspectives. The report also highlights the need for ongoing assessment of the fairness of jury trials.
In 1963, the Home Office established the Morris Committee to examine jury service, coinciding with expanded juror eligibility. Concerns were raised about the inclusion of the ‘labouring classes,’ immigrants, and ‘coloureds,’ suggesting that a more diverse juror pool could impact the ‘calibre’ of decision-making.
The study concludes that majority verdicts currently account for approximately 15% of annual convictions after a crown court trial, signifying a substantial number of cases where at least one juror harbors doubts about guilt. The findings underscore the complex historical backdrop that has influenced the legal system, prompting reflections on the fairness of jury trials in contemporary contexts.
