For this Government, a fair trial can only end with a guilty verdict

If the character of a government is defined by its legislative obsessions, then Tony Blair's administration ought to be remembered for criminal justice reform. Under Margaret Thatcher, substantial Acts changing trade union law became a biennial event. Under Mr Blair, there have already been 14 Acts affecting the criminal justice system. Most of these are minor, while the major changes have pulled in opposite directions – the Human Rights Act 1998 in a liberal one, the three anti-terrorist Acts in an illiberal one.

Now come the big changes: next week the Home Secretary publishes a White Paper setting out "a wide-ranging programme of reform" for the criminal justice system. This will lead to a Bill in the Queen's Speech this autumn and an Act next year. From the draft of the White Paper which we publish today, however, the plans fall short of the clarity of the Thatcher trade union reforms.

Some of the White Paper is sensible enough, although too often expressed in the kind of bureaucratic jargon which does little to persuade the reader that it has a grasp of the nuts and bolts of reform. It speaks of "seamless working", "joined-up systems" and "clean lines of accountability". Some of it, however, represents a dangerous erosion of the principles of justice. Several of these measures have been trailed in advance, but when they are collected in one document and introduced by a preamble of breathtaking ignorance, the full weight of Mr Blunkett's authoritarian bias becomes evident.

The theme of the chapter on "fairer, more effective trials" is that too many guilty people escape justice. "We will not allow the process to be treated as a game of snakes and ladders by the defence as a tactic to get people off," declares the draft. "There are too many cases in which tactical manoeuvres designed to secure acquittals by disrupting the process mean the right verdict is not reached." That is a chilling statement. Despite assuring us that the principle that an individual is innocent until proven guilty is "sacrosanct", the objective of this White Paper is to ensure more "right" – that is, guilty – verdicts are reached.

That means allowing defendants' previous convictions to be known in court and allowing people to be tried twice for the same offence – both of which effectively bring in a presumption of guilt.

It means finding other ways to restrict the right to jury trial, after the direct method was thrown out by the House of Lords. Thus magistrates will be able to try more cases and Crown courts with juries will try fewer, while judges will be able to dismiss juries if they say they are being intimidated and hear the case themselves.

To describe the work of defence lawyers as games and tactics is as offensive as it is uninformed. Their duty is – as Mr Blunkett would want it to be if they were defending him – to present the best case for their clients.

With this gaping hole in the middle of it, all the warm words in the White Paper about rehabilitating offenders will be negated. In defiance of the civilising assumption that it is better to let 10 guilty people go free than to lock up one innocent one, if these plans go through, our overflowing jails will have to be expanded at huge and unproductive expense, and there will be more miscarriages of justice.

It would be a tragedy if the opportunity for real reform is missed. The emphasis of this White Paper should be on dealing with the causes of crime, on simplifying and speeding up court procedures and on the rehabilitation of offenders.

If only Cherie Blair, who gave a thoughtful speech on these subjects this week, could be Home Secretary instead.