You don’t often get TV criticism at Head of Legal, but last night’s episode of Criminal Justice, the BBC’s new five-part drama about a murder trial, requires comment. Lindsay Duncan played Alison Slaughter, leading counsel for the defence, and I think the BBC are damn lucky they got her to do it. I’ve seen her make Pinter comprehensible and compelling, and she even made the ridiculous part she was given dramatic, and even slightly credible, in an overplayed way. But once she left after about forty minutes the best thing about Criminal Justice had gone and it was more obvious even than it had been before that this was a tired, clichéd, naively idealistic-yet-cynical legal drama of the sort we really don’t need.
I’m not of the school that believes TV drama needs to be relentlessly true to life in its detail, so small inaccuracies like the fact that a remand prisoner had to wear prison uniform can pass, I suppose. And it’s possible he’d have had to share a cell with a convicted prisoner; I’d like to hear from those who know prisons better than me whether it’s at all likely he’d have had to share with more than one. But when the entire presentation of a trial is skewed so as show the system in its worst possible light (lying, corrupt policemen, barristers who despise everyone and make up the defence case) then I think there is a problem. The pity is that criminal trials are compelling and dramatic in themselves, without there be any need to tart them up like this.
It’s the clichés that really got to me: the hard-bitten defence solicitor with an estuary accent who just cares about results and is incapable of fastening his top button; the hard-faced woman barrister who looks down on the pathetic rest of the world; the biased judge; the fresh-faced “rookie” barrister who plays a blinder. You only have to look at the BBC’s guide to the various characters to see how familiar they are. Here’s one:
Hooch is an insightful, world-weary, once-violent criminal. He has finally learnt to stop fighting what he can’t overcome and has found a place for himself in the world as a “listener”.
Need I say more? Pete Postlethwaite, who plays Hooch, surely got his fill of this sort of stuff in In the Name of the Father, you might have thought. But no.
And apart from this, there was speechifying in the guise of cross-examination, recalling witnesses to force them to admit there’s a crucial missing bit of evidence, last-minute desperate appeals to the deceased’s friend to “help”, and a sneeringly arrogant prosecution counsel. If you’re going to make hokum, why not make out-and-out laughable hokum like Judge John Deed? At least that really is funny. I’m afraid this is an equally lazy and uninspired legal drama, but which unfortunately seems to have ideas about itself. I’m sorry this is the best new legal drama the BBC could produce as part of its courtroom dramas season.
I didn’t see it, so shouldn’t really comment, but I noticed that the Bar Council issued a press release decrying the series this week: http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/news/press/599.html. Good that they shoehorned in a complaint about underfunding of criminal justice too.
Welcome to the world that those of us in commerce experience every day from the press, where your every move is spun in the worst possible light by other vested interests.
I should add, however, that on Radio 4 this morning The Guardian’s prison correspondent (himself a veteran of 16 years’ ‘bird’ ) claimed that his experience of barristers mirrored their depiction in the show!
I know, Kelvyn, I heard that with half an ear while typing furiously about Lord Phillips. It’s difficult to disagree with a personal story, not having been there, though I would just mention that the law builds in some level of dissatisfaction for at least 50% of litigants (it’s unlike most businesses in that regard) and a lot of them take it out on the lawyers when things go wrong. And if you end up in chokey… Secondly, I know there are cases of malpractice: I’d have no problem with a show about a corrupt barrister. It’s not quite the same as normalising that as though it’s the way law works.
But anyway, anyway, I wasn’t really taking the Bar Council line – just complaining about the clichés, really.I think it’s like writing a courtroom drama by numbers. There have been some good legal shows – Kinsey sticks in the memory, which was about a solicitor whose partner died leaving evidence of fraud. Kinsey was dealing with cases while the Law Society investigated him. Fish wasn’t too, too bad, with one of the McGanns as an employment lawyer. Ever seen Kingdom? What’s that like? Crown Court was the best of course.
Not seen Kingdom myself although it’s a favourite of MG. Looks like charming ‘country bumpkin’ stuff.
Deed was the best as he was just like Batman with a wig!
I have thoroughly enjoyed this series and I can tell you from bitter personal experience
that yes this is very realistic and yes the prison scenes are accurate.
Several years ago it was my misfortune to be dating a lunatic from Coventry and although in my case,
my supposed offence was not nearly as serious as the one portrayed here, I felt chilled to the marrow to be watching it.
My heart went out to the character of “Ben Coulter”, which was a sterling performance.
The trouble is in this country we have too many stupid laws made by Labour since 1997 and
yes THE TRUTH really does not matter in the slightest. I wanted to tell the truth too but
was prevented from doing so. I only wish that I had had a lawyer like “Stone”, played briliantly
by Con O’Neill.
Trust me this was very very accurate. I complained about the treatment that I received and the way my case
was investigated, to the IPCC – This resulted in me being remanded. Even when I got out they stil wanted to
pursue my complaint. The Police are not whiter than white and the IPCC is a biased “Lame Duck”, run by the Police
for the Police.
As for lawyers and barristers, they were not interested at all in the truth, just the best story thats all.
Fortunately I never went to a jury trial. I wish I had now, they would have laughed the case out of court !!
Years ago there used to be a lot of cannabis in prison and the officers used to turn a blind-eye – why ?
because cannabis has a “calming effect” and makes their job easier. Unfortunately it stays in your system for about a month.
Then in about 1984 they changed the prison drug testing rules and now everyone takes heroin,
because it only stays in your system for about 24 hours. Unfortunately it can make some people
violent, erratic or just plain jumpy.
That’s the answer to the “drugs in prison” question, for all those who have been asking on this and the
various other blogs about this drama.
What we actually have in this country is in fact a “Police State”, with a thin veneer of democracy,
or if you prefer “Do as I say, not do as I do” mentality. Prisons are for dangerous people.
trouble is the CPS do not really know what is and what is not dangerous.
Brilliantly scripted, brilliantly written, please lets have more. I loved the idea of putting the inappropriate
relationships in, as a bit of a side plot.
Bill Patterson is a fab actor too, i’ve liked him since his Auf-Weidersen Pet days,
I am glad he had doubts about his evidence right at the end and realised that “Ben”
did not do the murder. I think they could have made more of this, rather than just showing “Ben”
walking out of the prison.
When all said and done, drama or not. The Police and prosecution were WRONG in this albeit fictionalised case.
Hopefully Mr Moffatt will write some more. Very well done.