Earlier this year, Home Secretary Jack Straw, announced the government's intention to withdraw a defendant's right to opt for a jury trial in cases of medium seriousness.

Last week, academics, lawyers and laymen came together for an open debate on the issue and sent the government a clear message - think again.In the first of a series of public debates organised by the Gazette and the Law Society, Home Office minister Charles Clarke defended the government's position, saying it was not just a question of cost - although it was right to take that into account.

He said that 'for justice to succeed it must be efficient', adding that the proposed changes were leading to more transparency and a fairer system.Mr Clarke said there was considerable extra cost, waste of police time and greater inconvenience and worry to victims and witnesses where, in the 'majority of cases', defendants opted for a jury trial only then to plead guilty.

He added: 'I have no doubt that many people elect trial in the Crown Court to put off the evil day...

In many cases it is an attempt to manipulate the system, hoping that the victims, complainants or witnesses will not bother to turn up or that their memories after so long a period...

will have faded.'There was little in Mr Clarke's speech to alleviate concerns expressed by Lord Dholakia, chairman of National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO), regarding the disproportionate implications for black defendants who are statistically more likely to opt for a jury trial.

Where minority defendants lack faith in the criminal justice system and the police, 'a mixed jury trial may offer a little more protection to a black defendant', he said.Mr Clarke said concerns regarding the effect of the changes on those from ethnic minorities were to be addressed by ensuring there was greater confidence in the courts 'rather than accepting that the magistrates' courts in some way provide second-class justice'.

But the 300-strong audience was generally hostile, especially as the minister left the debate early, although his officials remained to hear the protests.In a blistering attack on both the government and the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice - which looked into and supported the government's proposals - Lee Bridges, professor of law and director of the Legal Research Institute at Warwick University, said: 'Like many a mad scheme, this one is supported more by myth and prejudice than it is by any foundation in fact.' He said there was no research to support the government's view that defendant's abused their right to opt for a jury trial, when in fact only one out of 25 elected to do so.

He said the only statics available dated back to 1989 and did not support the view that most defendants opting for a jury trial later pleaded guilty as the statistics were solely based on those found guilty, not those who were acquitted.

For every two defendants electing who elect for a jury trial, five are referred up to the Crown Court by the magistrates themselves, he pointed out.Professor Bridges also expressed concern that under the new system, magistrates would be entitled to hear a case but could then refer it to the Crown Court for sentencing where the sentence could be more severe.

The point made some impact on Professor Michael Zander, a member of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, who conceded that it was 'highly desirable' that magistrates should not be allowed to retain a case for hearing but refer to the Crown Court for sentencing.

He said it was 'a pity the commission had not taken on such a pertinent point which was certainly one the government should adopt'.Amendments to the government's original proposals which would allow a defendant to appeal the magistrates' decision on venue also came under attack.

Robert Toller, a barrister who spoke at the debate said it would lead to increased delays and would cost taxpayers more.'When the government realises that, will it reverse its decision or take away the right to appeal?' he asked.