In the eighteenth century Sir William Blackstone described the right to trial by jury as "the glory of the English Law". Two centuries later Lord Devlin argued that juries were "the lamp that shows that freedom lives". Lord Devlin contended that the right to trial by jury ensured citizens "got the justice they liked and not the sort of justice that the government or the lawyers or any body of experts thought was good for them".

Given these views, both Blackstone and Devlin must be turning in their graves at the news that three men charged with armed robbery are set to face the first criminal trial without a jury in England and Wales for 400 years. The historic trial proceeds following the Court of Appeal ruling in June that the "very significant" danger of jury tampering in the case left trial without jury as the only route to reach justice.

Delivering the judgment of the court, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge stated: "In this country trial by jury is a hallowed principle of the administration of criminal justice. The constitutional responsibilities of the jury are, however, flouted if the integrity of an individual juror, and thus of the jury as a whole, is compromised."

The case marks the unprecedented use of powers granted under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Section 44 of the Act allows judges to try cases without a jury where "there is evidence of a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place". Under the section judges must however also be satisfied that protective measures, such as police protection of the jury, "might not reasonably be taken to prevent jury tampering". In the present case Lord Judge held "protective measures do not sufficiently address the extent of the risk [of jury tampering]."

Civil liberties activists have labelled the Court of Appeal's ruling "a dangerous precedent". In a statement issued shortly after the judgment, Isabella Sankey, director of policy at Liberty, explained: "The right to jury trial isn't just a hallowed principle but a practice that ensures that one class of people don't sit in judgement over another and the public have confidence in an open and representative justice system".

The Crown Prosecution Service maintains the case "shows defendants who abuse their right to jury trial by embarking on jury tampering will not succeed in defeating justice".

Jury trials have existed on British soil, in one form or another, for most of the previous millennium. In 1215 the right to trial by jury was first enshrined in law in what was arguably the world's first proclamation of human rights – the Magna Carta.

Public support for jury trials remains overwhelming. A 2002 survey conducted by the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association found 80 per cent of the public believed trial by jury was fairer than being tried by a judge.

This strong public endorsement demands that alternative methods of conducting jury trials be tested before any curtailment of the right to trial by jury is permitted. One potential solution in cases with a high danger of jury tampering is to allow the jury to watch the trial via live video link from a supervised, undisclosed location. Although this method may compromise principles of open justice, surely it is better than having no jury at all? As criminals become more sophisticated, so must the solutions to combat crime. Last month's ruling is a wake up call for modernisation: the ancient right to trial by jury must become fit for the twenty-first century.

Nikesh Pandit will start the BVC at the The City Law School in September