The government's proposal to curb a defendant's right to elect jury trial is not new.

Successive governments have considered it over many years.

Under the last Conservative administration, when similar plans were put forward, they were condemned by Jack Straw, then Shadow Home Secretary, as being, 'unfair, short-sighted and likely to prove ineffective'.However, opposition is a different place from government, where every ministerial decision is made in the shadow of the Treasury.

There can be no doubt that cost-cutting is the principal reason for Jack Straw's change of mind.

Yet the right to elect jury trial must be a constant, not subject to the ebb and flow of social and economic factors.

Jury trial is a cornerstone of the British legal system; to Lord Devlin, 'the lamp that shows that freedom lives'.

Any attempt to curtail it must seriously undermine this government's civil liberties credentials.A democratic judicial system must be inclusive.

Jury trial is the only way in which most people can participate in the criminal process - otherwise the system is effectively a closed shop of lawyers, police, judges and magistrates.

Those who view themselves as being the most alienated from the criminal justice system are often those who have the least affinity with the legal professionals.

One has only to witness the reaction of the black community to the handling of the Stephen Lawrence murder to realise that for many, justice is neither done nor seen to be done.

No magistrates bench will ever be able to reflect the demographic mix of a jury.

Even if it could, the very act of regular participation in the legal system skews the perception of magistrates, so they lose their representative quality.

By reducing the right to elect trial, the government risks greater alienation of those who already have little faith in British justice.An argument put forward by those who favour a red uction in the role of the jury is that defendants 'work' the system, either pleading guilty at the last moment or banking on an acquittal from a lenient jury.

In reality, those who want to plead guilty are advised by their lawyers to do so in a magistrates' court where sentencing powers are limited.

Those hoping for an acquittal may be better off in the Crown Court, but this tells us more about magistrates than anything else.

The repeated contact with crime gives magistrates the impression that they represent part of the 'thin blue line' against lawlessness.

In such a climate, it is anathema to disbelieve police officers.It is hardly surprising that most innocent defendants would prefer a trial by jury.

Accusations that juries make mistakes and have difficulty understanding evidence usually come from lawyers.

This somewhat patronising view underlines why it is essential for the jury trial to remain undiminished.

When the law is an ass, sometimes it needs a lay jury to point this out.

When Clive Ponting was charged under the Official Secrets Act in the 1980s, there was no doubt in law of his guilt.

It took a jury's refusal to convict to bring justice.

Most of those who will lose the right to elect trial will be facing charges of moderate seriousness such as theft.

While a conviction for dishonesty might or might not result in a custodial sentence, it will inevitably affect an individual's reputation, employment potential and future.Eroding rights just as the Human Rights Act is scheduled to come into force in October 2000 is too great an irony to bear.

Rather than undermine further the right to trial by jury the government would be better advised to examine the weaknesses of the system of summary justice.

Rather than putting a price on rights, the government should give thought to the 63 recommendations of last week's National Audit Office report which identified opportunities for saving £84 million a year by improving efficiency in the criminal justice system.

We must persuade Jack Straw that the real cost of reducing the right to a jury trial will outweigh any short term benefit to the treasury.