THE PLAN by Home Secretary Jack Straw to restrict the right of thousands of defendants to trial by jury is not only an apparent compromise of his own former principles, but may also do the same for justice.

It may be that the judicial system would be speeded up and the taxpayer saved some £70 million annually if, as intended, some 22,000 people a year accused of middle-ranking offences such as minor theft or indecent assault were made to have their cases heard by magistrates instead of opting for a crown court trial as they do it present.

But having, in opposition, condemned a similar proposal by his predecessor, Michael Howard, it now seems that Mr Straw is, as a minister, charmed by the economy and efficiency of such a move.

However, he seems to be losing sight of the risk of justice being diluted in the process.

This is not to deny that there are inviting arguments for this departure.

The crown courts are clogged with defendants who could easily have been dealt with by magistrates and many change their plea to guilty before being tried, wasting time and resources. It is also the case that the legal profession, roundly condemning the plan today, does well out of all this and that many lawyers may even be encouraging this wastefulness in order to fatten their fees.

But the fact remains that it is a keystone of our judicial system that anyone accused of a crime should have the fullest opportunity to prove their innocence.

If they believe that this opportunity is best offered by trial by jury rather than having their case heard by a magistrate, it would be a denial of a fundamental right if some were refused it and others not.

And for all the attractive expedients in his plan, Mr Straw cannot assert that justice is improved by making it cheaper or swifter.

This is dangerous ground for a justice minister to head for - particularly when he has spurned it before for being unfair.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.