The four men found guilty by a judge sitting without jury for the first time in a criminal case since the star chamber was abolished in 1641 certainly looked like hardened criminals, and it seems probable that they were indeed responsible for the £1.75m heist at the Menzies world cargo building.

But their apparent guilt does not make the absence of a jury any less alarming in the trial that was presided over by Judge Treacy and has just ended with heavy sentences for all four men. A profound change has occurred in Britain where it is now possible for counsels and a judge to decide the fate of defendants without the involvement of 12 ordinary citizens – the fundamental guarantee against arbitrary state punishment represented so well by the use of the star chamber under King Charles I.

In the history of this disreputable government there is no better symbol of Labour's contempt for the traditions of the English law. However, we shouldn't be too surprised. The trend towards a legal system where the state can decide on a person's guilt without normal legal processes being followed has been with us for sometime, most notably in control order hearings where a sentence of house arrest is handed down to a suspect without him ever knowing the evidence against him.

I repeat the observation that if a Tory government had been responsible for the serial corrosion of important legal principles we would be out on the streets, but having been groomed by Labour's sinister machine over the last 13 years we just accept these erosions as being a necessity of modern life. They are not.

There are three disturbing aspects of this case.

First, the evidence against the accused was very good indeed. Darren Brockwell, the inside man at Heathrow, had turned Queen's evidence and this seems certain to have swayed a jury, which had been properly protected by the police, to find the men guilty.

Second, the decision to go ahead without a jury was partly taken for financial reasons. A jury trial was estimated to cost £6m, while one without a jury costs £1.6m. To the Crown Prosecution Service it seemed a no-brainer, but since when did we agree that a principle of every defendant's right to be tried in front of his peers had a price on it.

Third, and most important, the defence teams were not allowed to know the evidence of previous jury tampering, nor whether their clients were implicated in these alleged activities. The court and the public are expected to accept the word of the police that there are "sensitive issues" concerning this evidence and trust in their good faith. That is unacceptable.

None of this increases confidence in the CPS. The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has taken time to lecture us on the significance of the Human Rights Act yet is now the man who has orchestrated a trial that offends the very basis of British justice. His spokesman claimed that the trial went ahead without a jury to ensure justice was done. What utter nonsense. For those who care about the justice in the courts, the proceedings under Judge Treacy may comply to a normal understanding of justice in Kazakhstan, but not in the United Kingdom.

The final word should go to Paul Mendelle QC, chairman of the criminal bar association, who pointed out that jury trial was a fundamental right whose origins stretched back 800 years. "It represents the value that society places on the judgment of peers when citizens are accused of serious crime. Some values in a democratic society are beyond price. We would not countenance a restriction of the right to vote because elections were too costly, nor should we remove the right to jury trial simply on the grounds of cost when the costs may not be capable of scrutiny. I am concerned that this is just the start of a process and that the government will bit by bit trying to chip away at this bulwark of our freedom."

Shame on Keir Starmer. Shame on the judge and the lawyers who took part in this of parody of justice.