The Government intends to bring in new legislation, 'that to pay or agree to pay witnesses should be a criminal offence.'

But this will only apply to the media and not to the police, who pay vast amounts every year to witnesses/informers.

"Payments create a real risk of encouraging witnesses to exaggerate their evidence in court so as to make it more newsworthy, or to withhold relevant evidence from the court in order to give newspapers exclusive coverage later on."

    So said Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor. castigating the press over the Damilola trial, not a word about the money the Crown Prosecution Service, shoveled at the now discredited star witness.

    Not a word about making it illegal for the police to offer lighter sentencing to persons facing criminal charges or illegal to pay police informers to make statements.

    Payments or offers of lighter sentencing, do encourage witnesses to exaggerate their evidence in court so as to make it more jailworthy

    MOJUK, is of the opinion that when this legislation comes before parliament, there should be a campaign to make it illegal for the police to offer any potential witness any sort of inducement to take the stand.

Journalists and editors who agree to pay witnesses in criminal trials for their stories will be guilty of a criminal offence which could be punishable by prison under proposals published by the lord chancellor yesterday.

Witnesses and potential witnesses who agree to take money would also commit a crime.

The proposals follow concerns about the impact of chequebook journalism on the murder trial of Rosemary West, and the sex assault trials of the pop star Gary Glitter and the teacher Amy Gehring.

Another reform could leave media organisations with a bill for millions of pounds in legal costs if material they publish causes a criminal trial to collapse. The first trial of Leeds United footballers Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate, which disintegrated last April after a story was published by a Sunday newspaper, is thought to have cost the taxpayer �8m.

Baroness Scotland, minister in the lord chancellor's department, said: "A trial's abandonment not only seriously affects the administration of justice, it can prove to be very expensive for the taxpayer."

The new law on witness payments would make it an offence to make or receive payments to witnesses or potential witnesses for their stories, or to enter into agreements to make or receive payments.

The lord chancellor, Lord Irvine, said: "Payments create a real risk of encouraging witnesses to exaggerate their evidence in court so as to make it more newsworthy, or to withhold relevant evidence from the court in order to give newspapers exclusive coverage later on.

"Where the court is aware of a media contract, juries may be concerned that the witness's evidence has been affected."

Publishers, editors and re porters could face up to two years in jail or an unlimited fine in the crown courts, or one year and �2,500 in the magistrates' courts.

The Society of Editors questioned the need for a blanket ban. Executive director Bob Satchwell said: "There is no evidence that trials have been prejudiced and the media is well aware of its responsibilities to the administration of justice."

Baroness Scotland said that cash rewards for information put up by newspapers may also fall within the scope of the new measures.

She said there was "real concern" about last week's development in the Damilola Taylor murder trial, when the judge threw out the evidence of one of the prosecution's chief witnesses. He said the �50,000 reward offered by the Daily Mail had acted as an "inducement" to the 14-year-old girl.

Newspaper editors and reporters face two years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine under government plans to clamp down on chequebook journalism in criminal trials.

Cases similar to that of the supply teacher Amy Gehring, in which schoolboys were believed to have told their story to a tabloid newspaper for large sums, meant the justice system was being undermined, a minister said yesterday .

Lady Scotland also said the consultation on witness payments would cover concerns raised by the judge in the Damilola Taylor murder trial about rewards acting as inducements when they were offered by newspapers in return for criminal convictions.

"Payments made to witnesses for their stories by the media are objectionable, and even more so where they are conditional on the conviction of the accused," the minister said. "Payments create a real risk of encouraging witnesses to exaggerate their evidence in court to make it more newsworthy, or to withhold relevant evidence in court to give newspapers exclusive coverage later."

The Government has also decided to make newspapers foot the legal bill when they are found to be responsible for the collapse of a criminal trial. In a proposed change to the Contempt of Court Act, the Sunday Mirror could be liable for all or part of the estimated �8m cost of the first Leeds United footballers trial, which had to be abandoned when the paper published a prejudicial article.

Mirror Group Newspapers, publisher of the Sunday Mirror, will shortly appear in the High Court in London to face prosecution by the Attorney General under the present law of contempt of court. The newspaper is expected to be fined.

Yesterday the Society of Editors questioned the need for a ban on witness payments and said the new law could be counter-productive. "On the rare occasions that this becomes an issue governments threaten to bring out their sledgehammers," Bob Satchwell, the executive director, said. "There is no evidence that trials have been prejudiced and the media is well aware of its responsibilities to the administration of justice."

Professor Robert Pinker, acting chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, said the rules in the editors' code of practice on payments to witnesses in criminal trials were "tough and clear". In 1995, after the West case, the code had been strengthened. There had been only one breach since, he said. "We think it is wrong to say self-regulation has in any way failed in this area."

Mr Satchwell added: "It is patronising to juries to suggest they cannot take proper account of any payments so long as they are made aware of them. However much judges and government ministers might find it distasteful, sometimes payments to witnesses have achieved results where otherwise there might have been no justice."

Lady Scotland said the proposals would not outlaw payments by a newspaper to a witness reached after the end of the case. Nor would they stop newspapers offering payments during live cases so long as witnesses did not agree them until after the case.