Roger Smith of the legal human rights group Justice sees the move as an attack on a democratic right but former Serious Fraud Office head Rosalind Wright says the Attorney General's plans would be fairer for both defendants and the public.

The issue here is how to get jury trials in serious fraud cases to work. They don't work if they are going to last two years.

We have to keep the length of these jury trials to a six month maximum. And the question should be�how to do that.

Roger Smith: a need to tighten up trial procedures

The Attorney General has come to the conclusion it can't be done. I think that's wrong.

We have to tighten up prosecution procedures - to boil the evidence down to the absolute essentials. It may be that we should look at current offences and see if we need to add something to cover highly complex cases. The defence case might have to be more precise too.

We also have to tighten up the role of the judge. In March, just three months ago, a protocol was agreed�for judges to get more control of a case. We have given them no time to see if greater case management by judges can help to keep the trial moving.�

Show people the ultimate respect. Allow them to make the decision on guilt or innocence

If we do away with juries, it will be the thin end of the wedge. We will begin with serious fraud trials, extend to complex cases and go on to remove the right from more types of cases.

As citizens we have the democratic right to vote and to be on juries. If we lose the right to go on juries, we lose something very significant in our participation in our democracy.

Most jurors enjoy the experience and come back with renewed respect for the criminal justice system. What they do not like is hanging around and being�badly managed.

The government has a policy objective of getting people involved in the criminal justice system. Well, show people the ultimate respect. Allow them to make the decision on guilt or innocence.

At the moment, there is an intolerable burden on lay jurors in complex fraud trials and that does not enable the prosecution to present all the evidence it has to support the charges.

Rosalind Wright: juries do not get a total picture of the case

Cases are chopped to bring them to a manageable length and juries do not get a total picture of what was going on.

Simplifying a case is not great justice. By making trials so simple, you cannot retain the total picture of criminality alleged.

With the proposed alternative, you will also be able to get the reasons for a verdict and that's quite important in complex financial cases.

As a subsidiary point, costly cases will inevitably become much shorter and would lead to a huge saving of public money. While not a particular compelling argument on its own, it is an important factor to consider.

The aim here is for a fair and just outcome for both defendants and the public at large

When you have lay jurors, they have little experience. They come to the case completely cold.

They are subjected to a bewildering number of documents, speeches and witnesses, from which they have to reach a verdict. Jurors in these cases may be using their own instinct as well as the evidence.

A professional would look at things in a more dispassionate way.

There could be advantages for defendants in having a trial without a jury.

Changes to the system could help those accused in complicated fraud cases where they are presenting quite a technical defence.

The aim here is for a fair and just outcome for both defendants and the public at large.