Few would disagree with Home Secretary David Blunkett's statement that an effective criminal justice system is an important part of a fair, just and tolerant society.The government has welcomed the proposals set out in the recently published Auld report on the criminal justice system, saying it is in touch with the communities the criminal courts serve.

But the report has been greeted with mixed reactions at grass-roots level by criminal practitioners, with perhaps the strongest reservations levelled at the strong attack on the jury system (see [2001] Gazette, 11 October, 1 & 10).Lord Justice Auld's proposals have also been met with accusations of bureaucracy, a lack of appropriate costing of some suggested measures, and deep concern about the implications for human rights.Malcolm Fowler, past chair man of the Law Society's criminal law committee, has mixed feelings, particularly with regard to the proposed unification of the court structure into a single system with three divisions -- the Magistrates' Division; a new, intermediate District Division; and the Crown Division -- and the split of jurisdiction between them.He says: 'The reality is that at last Lord Justice Auld has taken up a number of our ideas.

Minor things have been taken out of the magistrates' court to free magistrates to deal with crime.'But I have considerable concern about the proposals for the intermediate court because there has been no costing exercise as to how expensive it will be.

It will be an elaborate and expensive tier into decision-making with no certainty as to how it will work.

The thinking is it will make better use of the judges, but this is not proven.'His successor as chairman of the committee, Graham White, says: 'We see no practical benefit of an intermediate court tier.

A uniform court system and streamlining of procedures could be just as well dealt with by increasing the sentencing powers of the magistrates.'Mr Fowler has reservations with regard to the removal of serious fraud and serious children's cases from trials by jury, calling it 'anti-democratic'.

He says: 'On the one hand, they say juries can be trusted, then they propose taking some difficult cases away from them.

They can't have it both ways.'Franklin Sinclair, chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, agrees: 'The removal of jury trials in some cases is a serious erosion of civil liberties.' He is also concerned that a defendant's previous convictions could be put to a jury.He explains: 'This can't be right.

It will be impossible to ask juries to look at previous convictions and then be told to ignore them.

I think this is proposed to get more convictions, but some innocent people are more likely to be convicted as well.

It's a broad-brush approach to make it easier to convict people.'The long-proposed removal of the defendant's right to elect jury trial in either-way offences -- opposed in parliament but raised again by Lord Justice Auld -- is not acceptable to Mr White: 'I am emphatically against this because it erodes the well-established democratic right of a citizen to be tried by 12 fellow citizens for offences, which may involve dishonesty and matters which we feel ordinary men and women should hear.'Girish Thanki, partner at London firm Thanki Novy Taube, says: 'I think it is bizarre to remove the right to jury trial unless the court agrees -- it is a backward step.

The things they would take into account when deciding the mode of trial are uncertain.'For example, a cannabis user who has shoplifted may well have no good name to protect but, in contrast, a vicar's wife may, and so this may constitute indirect discrimination.He adds: 'I don't think a great deal of reflection has gone into this report.

There is a great deal in it that's to do with the cost-saving aspect, not justice itself.

I'm also getting increasingly alarmed at the duplication between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department.'For example, the Home Office is pointing to the continued closure of courts in London -- so defendants may have to travel a long way to court.

In contrast, Auld's recommendations point to the need for more courts.

This is not, in my opinion, the way to run the criminal justice system.'However, he greets with enthusiasm the proposals for codification of criminal justice -- endorsed in the Law Commission's latest law reform agenda, pub lished last week (see [2001] Gazette, 25 October, 5).

He says: 'The criminal law is all over the place.

Sometimes you have to look at four or five different statutes when looking at an offence, and it is time we went down that path which would make offences easier to find.'Mr Thanki has misgivings about the removal of serious fraud cases from the remit of the jury: 'It's a very broad-brush approach.

These offences can be terribly complex and even the trial judge and barristers sometimes have difficulty in understanding how fraud offences are formed.'However, he backed the proposals in such cases where the offence is complex and very technical.

But in cases of pure dishonesty, such as mortgage fraud, he asks: 'Why not a jury?'Do some of the proposals represent a head-on clash between the justice system and the Human Rights Act? Martin Cunningham, partner at Manchester firm Cunninghams, thinks so.

In response to the proposal that juries should be compelled to explain their decisions to judges to filter out 'perverse' decisions, he says: 'To be able to decide a jury's decision was perverse takes away from the fundamental right of the jury to make its decision in a case.

If there is a perverse decision, [the jury] sees it as justice in that case.'He stresses that juries are the democratic underpinning of the criminal justice system and adds: 'It is a dangerous step to move away from the current system, and there are serious implications for individuals' human rights and civil liberties.'This view is endorsed by John Wadham, the solicitor and director of the civil liberties group Liberty, who criticises the proposed measures as a huge attack on fairness of the criminal justice system, particularly its cornerstone -- trial by jury.Mr Cunningham suggests the proposal to introduce exceptions to the double jeopardy rule is another backward step: 'The system is there for a reason so that people have confidence in it.

I see cases where statute can step in and it is going to affect the public's perception of the criminal justice system and make them cynical.'Rodney Warren, vice-chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association and chairman of the Law Society's access to justice working party, is positive about the procedural proposals of the Auld report.He says the proposal to give the Crown Prosecution Service -- and not the police -the job of deciding the appropriate charge is a 'sensible step'.He adds: 'I can understand the basis of that proposal.

The police tend to overcharge, leading to the CPS subsequently lessening the charge.

This creates the view, in the public perception, that the courts are not doing their job.'Mr Warren -- in common with criminal law practitioners up and down the country -- was also pleased by the suggestion in the Auld report that defendant lawyers should be properly paid, and the structure of pay should encourage proper preparation of the defendant's case.'The present system doesn't reward proper preparation and this can cost court time,' he maintains.The government has indicated that no decisions have yet been taken in the light of the Auld report.

Therefore, practitioners will be watching closely to see whether ministers will take notice of the reservations aired during the consultation period which ends on 31 January 2002.In the meantime, criminal lawyers may start to wonder how long working life will continue as they know it.