Barristers' groups are worried about eroding jury trial

The government won the first key vote in the report stage of its Criminal Justice Bill by 299 votes to 227 - a closer vote than expected, with 33 rebels.

The Labour MPs joined the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in voting against the plans, but several other backbenchers MPs clearly chose to abstain.

The revolt came against measures allowing a jury to be replaced by a judge in complicated cases about serious fraud or where there was deemed to be a danger of a jury being interfered with.

The vote saw the government's normal 167 majority cut to 72 and follows recent rebellions on Iraq and foundation hospitals.

Another joint Tory-Lib Dem proposal to prevent jury trials being curtailed where there was the chance of interference was later defeated by 304 votes to 223 - with 34 Labour MPs rebelling.

It sets the scene for a tough battle when the bill goes to the House of Lords, where previous moves to restrict jury trial have foundered.

If these steps go through, by the end of the decade we'll be lucky to have a jury in the Eurovision song contest Vera Baird Labour MP List of Labour rebels

Labour backbencher Bob Marshall-Andrews argued the measures threatened the fundamental right of trial by jury.

As Monday's debate entered its crucial stage, Home Secretary David Blunkett said the change would only affect about 100 cases a year, with thousands of trials using juries as normal.

He said the measures would tackle the problem of many jurors being unable to sit on long trials because they were trying to hold down their normal jobs.

He pointed to the Robert Maxwell pensions case, where 750 jurors were called and 550 excused.

Mr Blunkett continued: "By not allowing others to undermine confidence in jury trials, by not allowing others to use manipulation and interference to damage jury trials, we are actually strengthening the credibility, the well-being and confidence in both jury trials and the criminal justice system."

'Unjustified'

Conservative shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said the bill had caused "massive disquiet" across all political parties.

Mr Letwin said: "We believe that the proposals are unnecessary and are a serious attack on our civil liberties."

He warned that Tory peers would be urged to "fight to the last breath" on it.

Bob Marshall-Andrews has tabled the rebel motion

"If it means cratering the bill, I am prepared to see the bill cratered."

In the debate, there was hard criticism from Labour backbenchers, including Vera Baird QC.

"I predict that if these steps go through, by the end of the decade we'll be lucky to have a jury in the Eurovision song contest," she said.

Confidence worries

Mr Marshall-Andrews, who is also a QC, earlier said he would be delighted if more than 40 Labour MPs voted with him on Monday.

"Trial by jury is the most fundamental of our civil liberties and eroding it is wholly unjustified," he said.

He added that the issue was a "matter of principle" and that it was therefore "wholly wrong" for the government to introduce a three-line whip.

Mr Marshall-Andrews also indicated that a big vote against the bill would give added impetus to existing opposition in the House of Lords.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Simon Hughes warned the plans would reduce confidence in courts' decisions because they cut public participation in the process.

Mr Hughes also complained about other parts of the bill being debated.

After the key votes, Mr Hughes said: "The government are clearly in trouble on reducing jury trial.

"The combination of a small majority and barely an argument in support will make sure the Lords force the government to change direction like they did in the last Parliament."