Barristers' groups are worried about eroding jury trial

Peers voted by 210 to 136 - a majority of 74 - against plans to allow defendants to choose to be tried by a judge sitting alone.

The heavy defeat undermines other proposed jury changes, but the measures will remain in the Criminal Justice Bill when it is debated by MPs again in the autumn.

Earlier, Downing Street had warned the government might drop the whole bill if the Lords refused to back down.

But Home Office minister Baroness Scotland later told the BBC: "We are certainly not going to drop the whole thing.

"We are at the start of the process, not the end."

Peers will on Thursday debate other proposals, including plans to allow complex fraud trials to be conducted without a jury.

'Disgraceful' response

After the Lords defeat on Tuesday, the Home Office said in a statement: "This is a bad day for jury members, who would continue to be intimidated by dangerous criminals if this vote were allowed to stand.

"We shall reverse this defeat in the Commons.

"These are sensible, limited and appropriately targeted measures that, far from undermining a fundamental principle of the legal system, will protect its integrity and improve public confidence."

That response was branded "disgraceful" by the Conservatives, who said ministers should give police more resources to tackle jury intimidation rather than undermining jury trial.

The bill is not now expected to return to the Commons until October at the earliest.

That sets up a "ping-pong" battle between MPs and peers as the government tries to stop the plans running out of parliamentary time.

The proposals narrowly won the backing of MPs earlier this year after a rebellion by more than 30 Labour backbenchers.

Earlier, Conservative former cabinet minister Lord Hunt of Wirral said: "We urge the government to think again - juries are an essential part of a healthy democracy and represent public participation in the criminal justice system."

'Tragedy'

The government is concerned that jury trial is time consuming and onerous for juries, particularly in fraud cases.

But Lord Hunt, who is the head of a large law firm, said it was "patronising and wrong" to suggest juries were incapable of following complex fraud cases.

However, Metropolitan Police chief Sir John Stevens said scrapping automatic trial by jury was crucial for bringing gangsters to justice.

The changes would also save millions, he said. Giving jurors and families round-the-clock protection last year cost the Met Police �3.5m, rising to �5m this year.

Sir John said less than 100 cases would be affected, adding that it would be "an absolute tragedy" if the bill was kicked out because of the controversy over jury trials.

Ahead of the debate, Mr Blunkett said the government was "not saying juries don't understand serious fraud cases".

Under the current system, evidence was pared down and charges reduced to make the length of the trial more manageable for the jury, he said.