Home Secretary Jack Straw has set his sights on ending the time-honoured right to a trial by jury for people accused of middle-ranking offences. In doing so he is putting his weight behind a reform which in Opposition he described as "wrong, short-sighted and likely to prove ineffective".

The gap between then and now could be taken as another instance of a typical New Labour turnaround. Yet it is possible to see that there might be sense in Mr Straw's proposals, so long as every care is taken to ensure that no one is denied justice.

The reasons for wanting to strip some defendants of their right to a jury trial are concerned with both finances and the sometimes clogged mechanics of the legal system.

At present anyone charged with a middle-ranking offence can elect for a Crown Court jury trial, rather than having their case heard by magistrates. In doing so, they cost the State an average of £13,500 as opposed to £2,500 at the lower court.

Some defendants who opt for jury trial later change their plea to guilty, following a long and costly judicial process when their case could have been dealt with more swiftly by magistrates. Cases at Crown Court do take a long time to be heard, and often the case occurs an age after the alleged offence - a lapse which can seem an eternity to the victims of crime.

A jury trial is chosen by many defendants because they believe they will get a fairer hearing. This is especially so with those defendants who believe magistrates are somehow in collusion with the police. Defendants from ethnic minorities are more likely to elect for a trial by jury, believing they will receive a fairer hearing from a jury which may include blacks and Asians rather than a white magistrate.

Research also suggests that defendants in relatively minor cases who elect for a jury trial do so in the mistaken belief that they will receive a more lenient sentence.

Any change to a legal right which has been in place for more than 100 years has to be made with the greatest care and after full and proper consultation. Defendants affected by the changes must be aware of their altered rights and must still be treated with true justice.

But if the wheels can be made to turn a little more quickly, Mr Straw's proposals might well work - with the important proviso that it must not be a case of getting justice on the cheap.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.