Government plans to introduce legislation removing a defendant's right to a jury trial for either-way offences hit an all-time low last week when the Bill was wrecked by the House of Lords.Before the peers moved to defeat the Bill, opinion was divided over whether the government would reintroduce it into the House of Commons or absorb it into Lord Justice Auld's review of the criminal justice system, which was formally announced this week.Home Secretary Jack Straw reacted swiftly and decisively to any question over his commitment to the Bill.

He said the government would be introducing a second Bill in the House of Commons 'as soon as possible in this session of Parliament'.The government has stated its position on many occasions: the Bill is part of a programme to modernise the criminal justice system to reduce delay, and to help witnesses and victims 'ensure that the system best punishes the guilty and protects the innocent'.If reintroduced without amendment, the Bill would remove a defendant's right to opt for a jury trial in either-way offences -- which include burglary and theft -- and place it with the magistrates.

However, there would be a right of appeal against any such decision.For the first time, the Bill would also give magistrates the power to look at the effect of conviction on the defendant's reputation and livelihood when deciding on place of trial, a step which many critics say will lead to a two-tier system of justice.Last week in the House of Lords, Baroness Mallalieu, a dissenting Labour peer and criminal counsel, said the role of reputation and substance in deciding the method of trial was a 'fundamental flaw' in the Bill, which could sacrifice the principle of equality before the law.Leading human rights barrister Ben Emmerson says that while the removal of the right to elect is unlikely to fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights, article 14 'prohibits unjustified differences in treatment in the delivery of Convention rights, which could include the right to a fair trial on the ground of a person's status'.The government has turned to a plethora of statistics to support its case, such as last year's Narey report on delay in the criminal justice system.

From a sample of 977 cases, the report concluded that 60% of defendants who elected a jury hearing plead guilty before trial.

This leads to extra cost, police time being wasted and greater inconvenience and worry to victims and witnesses, according to a government spokesman.The government also predicts savings of around £105 million a year, £66 million of which is expected to come from reduced prison costs as a result of shorter sentences passed by magistrates.In addition, the government maintains that defendants opt for a jury trial to delay hearings in the hope that prosecution witn esses will fail to turn up or that their memories will have faded with the passage of time.One of the most outspoken critics of the Bill, Professor Lee Bridges, director of the Legal Research Institute at Warwick University law school, says there is no evidence to suggest that defendants opt for jury trials in order to cause delay.

It is usually because they believe they will receive fairer treatment or have received advice that they should do so, he says.Professor Bridges says the government's arguments, 'far from being logical or conclusive, have been shown to be based on half-truths'.

One 'half-truth' is that defendants who elect jury trial then plead guilty; many do so only because the charges against them have been reduced, he says.

The 'real abuse' of the system, he claims, lies in the police systematically over-charging defendants and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) failing to carry out early case reviews.The second 'half-truth' relates to Scotland; although defendants there do not have the right to elect venue, they do have a hearing before a professional judge at both levels and are guaranteed limited sentences if convicted following summary trial, Professor Bridges says.

Under Mr Straw's proposals, there would be no such guarantee because magistrates who retain a case for hearing can still refer it to the Crown Court for sentencing.

There has been speculation that the government might offer a concession on this point to mollify critics.

The third 'half truth' is that the government will save any money, let alone the £100 million suggested, Professor Bridges adds.New research has also been unveiled by the government addressing the thorny issue of how the Bill will affect the rights of black and Asian defendants.

Such defendants opt for a Crown Court trial more frequently than white counterparts, believing they will receive a fairer hearing.The survey of 5,500 defendants undertaken by Dr Bonny Mhlanga at the University of Hull showed that, where cases in the magistrates' court were contested, 57% of Asian defendants, 48% of black defendants, and 41% of white defendants were not convicted.

In the Crown Court, 44% of Asian, 36% of black and 30% of white defendants escaped conviction.

The government says these statistics put paid to the notion that black and Asian defendants receive fairer treatment at the hands of a jury, given that conviction rates are the same in both courts.

But, as David Pannick QC pointed out last week, the perception among black people is that juries are fairer than magistrates.

Peter Herbert, national chairman of the Society for Black Lawyers, said: 'The fact that white defendants were more likely to be convicted in both the Crown and Magistrates Court .

.

.

is a clear sign that charges were being preferred on black defendants by the police and endorsed by the CPS on inadequate evidence.'Professor Bridges also has little time for the government's argument that black and Asian defendants will be helped by the Bill on the grounds that those who elect for jury trial and are convicted receive sentences of up to two-and-a-half times as long as in the magistrates' court.

Professor Bridges says it is questionable whether this could justify denying defendants the right to plead not guilty and to challenge what may be unjustified charges against them when there is evidence 'consistent with a serious level of over-charging of ethnic minority defendants by the police'.