It is perhaps difficult to understand how a government majority of 101 supporting a major piece of legislation can be described as a defeat and a massive set back for the government. But in the Commons this week, this happened when 30 Labour backbenchers rebelled against the government, and voted with the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives against proposals to reduce the defendant's right to a jury trial.

Despite strenuous denials from the Home Secretary, members of Parliament were not persuaded that the bill was not being driven by the Treasury, in order to reduce the current cost of our justice system. After questioning it appears that the savings of removing the right to trial by jury in 'either way' cases, could be between £100m and £140m, but compared to the total costs of the system of £9bn, the saving does seem relatively modest.

Thus we were invited to believe that this major change is based on principle. This too remained far from proven following a debate in which 14 out of 17 speeches were against the bill. The right to trial by jury has been a fundamental principle of our justice system, having been in place for hundreds of years, and in its present form for l50 years. There must therefore be significant reasons before we even consider change. If we disregard costs, which, as I say, the government claim were not a consideration, what have we left?

It amounts, really, to trying to stop a few crafty and unscrupulous criminals from 'playing the system', creating delays and trying to remain on bail for as long as possible. Of course there are delays in the system generally, but these are mostly to do with poor administration: files not properly prepared, witnesses failing to turn up, adjournments because barristers have other courts to attend. Few delays are strictly the fault of the defendant. So why is it necessary to erode this long standing right of a citizen who is innocent until proven guilty?

Well it seems that Jack Straw is 'irritated' by these few people who 'play the system'. I have news for Mr Strew: we have people 'playing the system' in housing, benefits, banking, taxation and in almost every other field of human existence and endeavour, but that does not mean that the overwhelming majority should have their legitimate rights curtailed. This is a mean and bad piece of legislation, it is based on shaky ground, it seeks to overturn a basic right in law and it should not become law.

Thankfully it is likely to be defeated in the Lords, but of course Mr Straw could try again to force it through by way of the Parliament Act, but many of us would see that as 'playing the system'.