Lord Justice Auld proposes radical changes

Such cases could instead be heard in a middle tier of a new court system in which two magistrates sit with a district judge, Lord Justice Auld suggested.

Bar Council chairman David Bean QC said the new survey findings showed that people trust juries.

Of the 900 people polled, 81% said they thought trial by jury was fairer than being tried by a judge, 80% regard a jury system as capable of producing better justice, and 73% thought a jury would be more likely to reflect their views and values.

'Political miscalculation'

Mr Bean said: "Recent reports of a government change of heart on the issue, if true, are vindicated by these findings, which show that support for juries is rock solid".

Criminal Bar Association chairman Bruce Houlder QC added: "These findings underscore the reported view of the government that to pursue some of Lord Justice Auld's proposals would weaken justice for everyone, would be profoundly unpopular, and would be a political miscalculation".

Home Secretary David Blunkett, Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine of Lairg and the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, are reported to have come out against Lord Justice Auld's proposals.

Earlier plans to limit the right to jury trial, put forward by former Home Secretary Jack Straw, were twice defeated in the Lords.

Home Secretary David Blunkett is understood to have questioned the principle behind reforms proposed by his predecessor.

Public consultation on the Auld Report proposals closes at the end of January but there are reports that another of its ideas - for a new right of appeal against "perverse" jury verdicts - has also been rejected by ministers.