The publication of an important piece of Ministry of Justice-commissioned research by Professor Cheryl Thomas into the fairness of juries has aroused significant media interest.

The main findings were that: only a third of jurors understand the judge’s legal directions; white jurors do not discriminate against black defendants; female jurors may be more easily persuaded to change their minds; and some jurors find it difficult to disregard media coverage of a case. Should we surprised by any of this? I do not think so.

This report is a clear vindication of the jury system and shows that in general it is inherently fair. There is room for improvement, but jurors are conscientious and understand the gravity of the decision they are making.

For me, the report indicates that the main problem may not lie with jurors but with lawyers. While we understand what goes on in the courtroom, we sometimes forget that jurors are dropped into an alien environment and are expected to interpret difficult legal principles in the light of the facts of the case. Therefore, it is no surprise that, when questioned after a judge’s direction, only a third were able to interpret that direction correctly. I suspect that if law students were questioned at the end of each lecture about what they had learnt, perhaps 50% would not immediately be able to explain correctly the principles outlined in that lecture.

Are we then asking too much of jurors? Or not doing enough to help them? The report points out that the provision of written directions on the law would be of assistance. I agree. It would not be difficult to provide written directions on such matters as theft, assault and a number of cases that come before the Crown court.

If women are more easily persuaded to change their original view than men, then perhaps that is an indictment of men. Perhaps it shows that men are less prepared to listen to reason.

I am also unsurprised that jurors find it difficult to dismiss past media reporting from their minds. I have always considered it an almost impossible piece of intellectual gymnastics to expect ordinary citizens to disregard media reports that they have already digested. These are bound to colour their views. Nor is it reasonable to be shocked that jurors surf the web for information about a case despite being told not to. People are, by nature, inquisitive.

I agree that it would be sensible for jurors to be provided with a written list of ‘dos and don’ts’ to keep with them during jury service. It is likely that many jurors, when told what they can do and cannot do at the outset of a case, will have forgotten these instructions when they come to deliberate on the evidence. The difficulty here, of course, is that we cannot learn and may never know what happens in the jury room or individual cases because of the provisions of section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act, which forbids investigation of a jury’s decision, save when authorised by the court.

What is also reassuring about this study is that it shows that all-white juries do not discriminate against black and minority ethnic defendants. Therefore, racially balanced juries are not needed, it suggests; this has been a consideration in the past. Another welcome finding relates to the preponderance of convictions in rape cases – a 55% conviction rate dispels the myth that juries are primarily responsible for the low conviction rate overall arising from allegations of rape.

In essence, we can conclude from this research that jury trials are fair and form a crucial part of our judicial system. Yes, there is some work to do, but the principle of trial by jury must remain sacrosanct and deserving of our protection.

Ian Kelcey is chairman of the Law Society criminal law committee