The right to elect trial would be offset by the lesser numbers of committals for trial that the magistrates would make

Lord chancellor Lord Irvine

Lord Auld's 700-page report, published last October, suggested the scrapping of jury trials for so-called "either way" cases such as burglary, theft and assault - they account for up to two-thirds of cases heard in crown courts.

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.

Doubling magistrates' sentencing powers would reduce the number of cases committed to crown courts by an estimated 6,000 a year.

"The right to elect trial would be offset by the lesser numbers of committals for trial that the magistrates would make," Lord Irvine explained.

Defeat

But he also suggested defendants in complex fraud cases be tried by a judge and two expert assessors rather than a jury.

He told the Financial Times: "There are very serious fraud cases, which - without being in the least patronising about juries - are really beyond their technical competence.

"As a result, serious fraudsters go free."

Labour's 2001 election manifesto committed the party to removing the "widely-abused right" of defendants to opt for jury trial.

But earlier plans to limit the right to jury trial, put forward by former home secretary Jack Straw, were twice defeated in the Lords after massive opposition from the legal profession and civil rights campaigners.

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

A spokesman for civil rights group Liberty, Roger Bingham, said: "We welcome the apparent acceptance that the government should not limit trial by jury."

The Lord Chancellor's Department later stressed all options were open and no decisions would be made until July.

link text here