Four men accused of being part of a gang that stole £1.75 million in a raid at Heathrow face the first criminal trial without a jury in England and Wales for 400 years after an historic Court of Appeal decision yesterday.

John Twomey, 61, Peter Blake, 56, Barry Hibberd, 41, and Glen Cameron, 49, must be tried by a judge alone after claims of jury nobbling at a previous trial, the court ruled.

The four are alleged to have taken part in a bungled armed robbery of a Menzies World Cargo warehouse in February 2004. They deny a series of charges, including conspiracy to rob and the possession of a firearm.

The robbery has already given rise to three trials at a total cost of £22 million. The third collapsed last year after what the judge called “a serious attempt at jury tampering”.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, with Lord Justice Goldring and Mr Justice McCombe, decided yesterday that the case could be heard by a judge alone. A preliminary hearing for the fourth trial is scheduled to take place at the Old Bailey on July 10.

The ruling means that the new trial, which would normally be tried by a jury, will be the first of its kind in England and Wales under legislation that took effect in 2003 to prevent jury nobbling. The only other judge-only trials for serious cases, known as Diplock trials, have been in Northern Ireland.

Defence lawyers reacted with dismay, saying that they did not know the detail of the allegations and therefore were unable to rebut them. They said that they would seek an explanation from the Attorney-General, Baroness Scotland, QC, as to why safeguards agreed by Parliament to give a defendant the right to challenge a judge-only direction appeared to have been ignored.

The judge-only provisions are contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. But after concerns during the Bill’s passage, including by Vera Baird, QC, now Solicitor-General, MPs agreed that defendants must have an opportunity to make representations.

Lord Judge said: “The case concerns very serious criminal activity, including possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, possession of a firearm with intent to commit robbery and conspiracy to rob.”

During a “carefully planned and professionally executed armed robbery” a gun was fired at a supervisor, he said. “The objective of the robbery was something in the region of £10 million in sterling and mixed foreign currency. As a result of a misreading of a flight manifest, the proceeds amounted to £1.75 million, which are largely unrecovered.”

Lord Judge added: “In this country trial by jury is a hallowed principle of the administration of criminal justice. It is properly identified as a right, available to be exercised by a defendant unless and until the right is amended or circumscribed by express legislation.”

But, he said, the constitutional responsibilities of the jury were flouted if “the integrity of an individual juror, and thus of the jury as a whole, is compromised. Such a compromise occurs when any juror, whether because of intimidation, bribery or any other reasons, dishonours or becomes liable to dishonour his or her oath as a juror by allowing anything to undermine or qualify the juror’s duty to give a true verdict according to the evidence.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure