One criminal barrister, who declined to be named, said, ''You get a very rough go in the Magistrates Court. I tell my clients that if you want a fair trial, take it before a jury.''

Proposed changes to the territory's judicial system introduced in the Legislative Assembly last week and aimed at restricting ''forum shopping'' have met with strong opposition from the legal community, which believes the laws will have the opposite effect.

If the laws are passed, defendants will have to elect whether they consent to the Magistrates Court jurisdiction before a magistrate is allocated to hear the matter.

At the moment, defendants have until the end of a magistrate's hearing before deciding whether they want the magistrate to determine their guilt or commit the matter to trial in the Supreme Court, where they can elect to have a jury or a trial by judge alone.

Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the new law was aimed at reducing the practice of forum shopping, but practitioners and even some magistrates say they believe it will have the opposite effect.

Several lawyers have already said they would take contested hearings to the Supreme Court every time.

A strong perception exists among offenders and defence lawyers that most custodial sentences will be discounted on appeal.

Legal practitioners, magistrates and prosecutors believe the Supreme Court metes out more favourable treatment.

One criminal barrister said, ''You always get a discount on appeal, just for having gone to the trouble [of lodging one].''

One magistrate said, evidently with his tongue only slightly in his cheek, ''It's almost professional misconduct for defence counsel not to appeal against a custodial sentence given by a magistrate.''

The feeling among magistrates is that their sentencing decisions are being ''tinkered with'' on appeal even if there is no error of law, simply because the judges believe they would have imposed a lesser penalty.

But, while most prosecutors, police and magistrates believe the Supreme Court is too soft on alleged offenders, defence lawyers argue their clients are voting with their feet because magistrates are too unreasonable.

They point to several decisions in the past year where significant errors of law have led judges to quash both convictions and sentences.

The perceived harshness is most strongly felt in relation to contested hearings.

One barrister and former prosecutor said, ''If there were even-handed justice in the Magistrates Court people would flock there, because it's very expensive to run a trial.

Even when offenders plead guilty to relatively minor offences that could be dealt with in the Magistrates Court, they are increasingly electing to be sentenced by a judge.

Another practitioner said, ''There are hardly any offences for which you have to be sentenced in the Magistrates Court. Most matters you just flick up to the Supreme Court.

''It's rough justice in the Magistrates Court: you get much better-quality justice in the Supreme Court.''

According to 2006-07 Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, the ACT Magistrates Court limited as it is in the severity of sentences it can impose gave custodial sentences to 16 per cent of the offenders it sentenced, second only to the Northern Territory. Because the ACT has only two criminal courts, instead of three as the most populous states do, its Magistrates Court deals with more serious offences than other magistrates courts, and the Supreme Court deals with ones of lesser gravity.

But Tasmania's Magistrates Court another two-tier jurisdiction sentenced only 4 per cent to custodial orders.

In 2006-07 the ACT Supreme Court imposed custodial sentences on 68 per cent of defendants, compared with the national average of 82 per cent.

Defence lawyers admit they obtain Supreme Court access for their clients either by not consenting to have matters kept in the Magistrates Court or through strategic adjournments.

One barrister said, ''You can't get away from [magistrates] in summary matters, so you have to do skilful magistrate shopping.