Rarely does a government back away from objectives and policies with such a large step as the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department took jointly last week over the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill.Pressure from many fronts - including volleys from unexpected critics on their own benches in the House of Lords - pushed Home Secretary Michael Howard and Lord Mackay into the climbdown.

And no small contributor was the Justices Clerks Society (JCS), one of the bodies which stood to be most acutely affected by the proposed legislation.'There is no doubt that the reaction in the House of Lords was far greater than the government had thought it would be.

They misjudged that,' says Bryan Gibson, chairman of the society's criminal law committee and clerk to the Basingstoke justices.'We thought [the revolt] was going to happen as we had for a long time been receiving assurances from many people that they would speak on our behalf.

We could not have asked for more from people who saw the constitutional point as clearly as we did from the start.'Last week, Mr Gibson and his colleagues were entitled to allow themselves a smile and a sigh of relief as Lord Mackay backed down over the more contentious issues in the Bill, such as fixed-term contracts and performance-related pay (see page 6).

But, he warns, the battle will continue on some fronts.The JCS plans to continue focusing on the role of the chief justices' clerk.

Ideally, it wants the Lord Chancellor to ensure that the new post will not carry any judicial functions and, to reflect that, it wants the name to be changed to 'chief executive'.Furthermore, the JCS still has reservations about the possibility of the enforced amalgamation of magistrates' courts committees.

Whether the government will consider that it has made sufficient concessions and will go no further remains to be seen.

Mr Gibson says part of the problem is a question of mentality.'If a government is set on doing things and has to plough its way through on many issues, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the courts are not just one more issue.

They are different.

What you do in relation to the management of the courts goes to the very heart of the constitution.'Although the fight over the proposed legislation has preoccupied minds at the JCS for some time, it is by no means the only issue of concern.

Mr Gibson says the new bail provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill are also causing unease among his members.The main danger, says Mr Gibson, is with the 'idea that the presumption in favour of bail should shift.

It's part of an attitude of toughness that has been sounded by politicians.

The danger is that it can misfire.'But Mr Gibson also attempts to sound positive.

'We are happy about the idea of police attaching bail conditions and see that as a progressive step.

It means there will be no need for special courts to be arranged for that purpose, especially over the weekend periods.

People will not need to be kept in custody because they can be released at the discretion of the custody sergeant.'There are also concerns that when ministers talk tough, occasionally vulne rable and innocent people 'get dragged along with the tide'.

Mr Gibson says the idea of targeting specific groups within society - secure training orders for persistent juvenile offenders, for example - might at first seem laudable, but can serve only to divert attention from the wider problems within the criminal justice system.One of those more general problems, says Mr Gibson, is the rapidly changing legal aid landscape.

Of particular concern to the JCS is the future shape of franchising.Mr Gibson says any move towards expanding franchising to the point where firms are bidding for all the criminal work in a certain location would be dangerous.

'You need several lawyers competing in a particular field in order to have a healthy situation as far as representing accused people is concerned.'Any extension of franchising, says Mr Gibson, could create a system where the franchise holder takes on the role of 'local attorney-general', being viewed by the public as part of the court rather than an independent legal adviser.

Such a situation must be avoided, he says.

'It is essential in the interests of justice that there is a wide choice [of lawyers] and it should not be influenced by secondary [financial] considerations.'Words that would charm criminal legal aid practitioners around the country.

Where Mr Gibson and the JCS might to some extent part company with criminal lawyers is over the government's proposals for altering a defendant's right of silence.The JCS does not support the full set of proposals, it would, for instance, not back the idea of compelling judges to ask defendants to give evidence.

But Mr Gibson believes that 'there are situations where any reasonable person would be expected to give an explanation rather than just remain silent'.One result of the campaign against the criminal justice reforms is that justices' clerks have attained a much higher public profile.

No bad thing, too, says Mr Gibson.

'You cannot have a situation where people don't understand where the advice to magistrates comes from.'But, he says, whether lawyers will still want to do the job over the next few years is debatable.

Before the Lord Chancellor's rethink over the magistrates' courts Bill, he and his colleagues were staring at a depressing future 'because of a creeping civil service mentality'.

Line management and performance targets are not conducive to the autonomy and freedom that first attracted Mr Gibson to the job.After last week's events, however, Mr Gibson remains hopeful.

'It may still be a worthwhile career for anyone with a bit of initiative and a wish to make decisions off their own bat.'