Some of the most worrying cases, as most advocates know, involve minor cases which result in colossal personal consequences far beyond the monetary penalty. So-called shoplifters, even more vulnerable than the petty officer, can suffer years of misery from the public exposure. Why hamper in any way their right to trial by jury? For them everything is at stake. Understandably, they might feel that the magistrates have heard it all before.In any event, some of the reasoning now seems outdated.

The picture of dramatic delays in the Crown Courts has changed sharply, both in London and on the regional Circuit. Bail, properly operated, must in time reduce the numbers of those remanded in custody unnecessarily.Nor should the inevitability of some “cracked trials” – pleas of guilty entered on the morning of trial – affect the fundamental right of choice. Defendants change their mind at the last moment for reasons that cannot be boxed neatly This cannot be eliminated. A defendant simply may be unable to face up to the reality of his position until compelled to do so by imminent trial and challenge.The cynic will see all this as special pleading for fat lawyers to earn fatter fees, by keeping the system going for their own exclusive benefit. As a game of criminal cricket, pursued cynically without regard to the public purse.

They forget the reality – the mass of small cases with no great financial reward conducted in unexciting court rooms for frightened and intimidated people. Here their advocates seek, in an unsensational way, to do justice, justice for the defendant who has misinterpreted a minor sexual signal, or the confused pensioner who forgot to pay.It is a second-rate lawyer who conducts cases with no other obligation than letting the meter run. The rest of us can value the client’s gratitude, sometimes independent of the result, which gives a sense of worth to the pursuit of their case as keenly as the rules permit. Silks who operate in alternative arenas, outside court, may not understand the value of jury trial, but they interfere with it at their political peril. We must reject overwhelmingly this arbitrary exercise of power which has been dressed up as financial reform.

You cannot put a price on justice.Call me suspicious, but behind these limited proposals, I see a far more dangerous scenario – a subtle move to replace lay justices altogether with a professional stipendiary bench. How else would magistrates be able to cope with such a huge increase in their workload? More trials, less time and much more difficult to continue to have adjourned hearings. So, a neat end to the good balance that exists at present between the professional and lay bench Not, of course, overnight. But gradually, in the face of financial discipline and compelling statistics. Suddenly, another well- respected institution bites the dust, the victim of political thuggery and populist propaganda But it will not end there The next step will be trial by clamour.

And so easy to achieve.Suddenly an imperfect system becomes a nightmare and trial by jury an inevitable casualty “Always the angry crowd, very angry very loud – Law is WE” Auden was right. “WE”, the voice of simple solutions, untrammelled by the inconvenient process of trial Revenge and retribution in equal measure. Trial by newspaper headline: “Murderers!”A better world already exists and we threaten it at our peril. The sober presentation of evidence, with minimal interference from a professional judge. Cross-examination of ordinary and expert witnesses in front of 12 people, looking beyond the words to demeanour and mood. A proper judicial restraint in the admission of relevant evidence and the ability to identify issues and essential facts, with the decision left to the representatives of the community.William Penn on trial in 1670 at the Old Bailey, cried out to his jury – “You are Englishmen Mind your privilege Give not away your right”.