Not 'your honour' in a magistrates court.
Not 6 months on a guilty plea in the magistrates court.
No automatic right to bail when charged with murder.
Provocation a defence to murder, yes, but only insofar as it makes it manslaughter. She could be charged with attempted murder and the same thing applies.
This is very annoying for a criminal lawyer to watch! Why don't they run the script past one of us first?!
And she's far too junior for a case like this.
And the case would be taken off circuit and certainly wouldn't be tried by the judge who knows the IP, and the trial judge certainly wouldn't be identified that early on.
Also......
in the first episode he is finishing a criminal trial, but is seen leaving the RCJ, a civil court.
The defence solicitor always seems to be popping her head round the door of the defence barrister's office. If she was a duty solicitor at the police station on the night of the incident, she would not be from a prestige firm of solicitors that have barristers in house.
Barristers are rarely contacted by solicitors except via a clerk. The 2 professions seldom discuss cases casually - normally in an organised case conference.
The murder victim is obviously from an upper middle class background, public school, Oxbridge, QC, etc, etc. Although he may be chummy with his head clerk, who is obviously the East-end lad made good, he would hardly make him the Godfather of his child. The class system still exists in the legal system, it would be like the Lord of the Manor making his chauffer a Godfather.
The prison service can be insensitive, but would it allow the mother and daughter to meet for the first time in a crowded visitors room in such a high-profile and sensitive case. Surely the social worker wouldfn't have allowed that.
Speaking of which, where is the media - in reality wouldn't the press be all over the place?
And how did the senior detactive get on the scene so quickly, before the emergency services?
Apart from all that, it will be interesting to see where the storyline is going, because it hasn't got far yet.
There aren't any trials on indictment in the RCJ (there are appeal convictions, of course).
Sadly a lot of firms have now employed barristers, nothing to do with prestige, more to do with greed. I wasn't watching that closely, but was she appearing at the barrister's chambers?
Sadly, barristers are frequently contacted by solicitors directly, and visa versa. It's often the only way to get things done.
Yup, the clerk is far too prominent. He wouldn't be returned a rape on the day before trial except in rare circumstances, nor would he, as a silk, take the brief.
I know, isn't it dragging on! Style over substance for me at the moment. but I shall, inevitably, watch on....
I think the problem that so infuriates everyone in any profession is that TV shows are just that. Dramatic effect has to be taken into consideration, what lay people can follow has to be considered (how many characters can they remember, what would they recognise as a court case), what do they know about the courts, the social care system blah blah. It won't be accurate because real life and procedure and red tape make for bad TV. I think we are supposed to surmise that the solicitor and the Barrister are friends because even I know that it doesn't work like that usually. I mean it’s all dramatised. Jaded social workers tend not to be that involved in their case files. For one thing their case loads are too big. Just enjoy it for what it is. In board strokes it is pretty accurate.
shareHmmm. Those are VERY broad strokes!
What is annoying is that, for example, the 6 months dispensed by the DJ for the girl who admitted possession of a 'stash' (presume possession with intent cannabis or heroin?) didn't serve the plot and was inaccurate. The same can be said for a number of other flaws: if it doesn't advance the plot to do it inaccurately, why not do it accurately?
Besides which, it builds a very negative impression of a profession under fire at the moment.
Lots of inconsistencies agreed but one thing it does get right is the fact that the solicitor is doing all the hard work whilst the barrister is doing very little but is looking for the glory!!
shareYou see I didn't notice that at all. And that was because they needed her to be the flatmate. They had to have her around that long.
Every and any foul knows that it isn't a 'real' life depiction. Its fine for what it is and gritter than most.
'fool'?
It's supposed to be gritty and real, so when it isn't real, it defeats its own purpose.
Oh, and solicitors may have done all the work in the old days - they don't any more. Besides which, you'd have to be crazy to instruct the girl in this show...
Well, my training was a few years ago now so it has been a while since I have had to instruct a barrister so who knows, I may be wrong. Unlikely though - I cannot see the profession having changed that much in 5 years!
I agree that it would be stupid to instruct someone so junior in such a case but I would be tempted just because she looked cracking naked in Teachers!!
well, if it paints a negative picture of the legal profession, then maybe it is more accurate than we thought!
I think the intention of this programme, and the irony in its title, is to be negative about the whole justice system - not just the legal profession, but also the courts, the police, social workers, prison service, probation service - all combining to provide a justice system that is so bad it is criminal in itself.
On the flaws: how has the main character moved on through a full term pregnancy, yet she is still sharing a cell with someone who got 6 months and would have been let out much earlier?
Meanwhile, the police investigation only seems to have moved on a number of weeks.
The portrayal of Camden police getting interviews without solicitors is fairly accurate though.
and that, amanda, is the embodiment of the problem - thank you for illustrating it!
6 months, out in around 2. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
Yes sorry fool. Wrote that in a hurry. Every 'foul' too though.
I guess I just don't really care about dramatic license like that. I work in an industry that is often glamorised by the media. But I really don't care. TV is TV and life is life. I never think about it.
Yes, it's a shame. I suppose it's the grip the media and tv has on our lives. Some people are prepared to accept inaccurate and unfair portrayals because they serve a dramatic purpose, and soon people will anticipate that's how the system actually works. It is a very middle-class, Daily Mail problem.
Similarly, the films such as JFK, Titanic and U-571 deliberately distort historic truth for dramatic emphasis, leading people to think that, for example, Lee Harvey Oswald was an incompetent gunman, incapable of shooting JFK in the way he quite obviously did. Oliver Stone thinks the American audience understood this: in fact he over-rates their capacity to enquire.
Well actually I do have a bit of a problem when they distort historical facts. Not so much when they 'dumbdown' things for TV. As a piece of writing though, this program has asked some interesting questions about the role of women, equality, the role and treatment of sex. Not to mention the more disgusting side of prisons (tampon in the tea anyone). But you know I bet prison wardens are watching this and going: you don’t know the half of it.
shareNeed I say it? A Defence Statement in a murder case done a week before trial?! And she's supposed to be a bloody silk? Leading a bloody solicitor?! Who is going to organise the witnesses etc when the bloody solicitor is sat behind her. And who talks to their solicitor like that? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. And why the hell has no one in the programme has mention psychological, or more likely psychiatric reports?! They'd have them coming out of the seams! How very very irksome.
I suspect you're right about the prison wardens. In my experience, they're a pretty unhelpful bunch.
[deleted]
I'm more bothered about how dire this is as a drama.
Actually I think as a drama, it poses some very serious and interesting questions about women, relationships, subjugation, sex, power, doubt etc.
"Actually I think as a drama, it poses some very serious and interesting questions about women, relationships, subjugation, sex, power, doubt etc."
Yes, the obvious questions that would arise in a case like this, and questions that have been addressed far more effectively, not to mention far more economically, in endless dramas of the same ilk, dramas that have at least tried to provide answers and (primarily what a drama is supposed to do) provide entertainment.
This drama has failed miserably at that. It has lasted four hours so far and I'm sure (unless something comes out of left-field, which I very much doubt) the conclusion will be what anyone with a modicum of intelligence has already surmised.
This feels like an endless episode of Judge John Deed shot by an art-house director.
I'm ****ing Irish. I'll deal with something being wrong for the rest of my life.
Yes, the obvious questions that would arise in a case like this, and questions that have been addressed far more effectively, not to mention far more economically, in endless dramas of the same ilk, dramas that have at least tried to provide answers and (primarily what a drama is supposed to do) provide entertainment.
Isn't the point that there are no answers. We may find out more about why she did it; but there are no answers to the issues that the drama presents.
It's 'Your LORDSHIP'!! A silk my anus.
Why am I still watching this? Is it the same compulsion that causes me to slow down when I drive past road accident?
The issue this series has raised is: why isn't there anything better to watch on weekday evenings?
How remarkably prescient, my first comment.
"I know what I'm doing! I'm saving her life!" Sounds like this solicitor has been taking tips from Gordon Brown.
Sounds like this barrister has got their head stuck up their arse. But lets be honest, thats where most of them live. Pretention is a middle name for 95% of them.
shareIts obvious why she did it - she had an affair, her husband found out and got suspicious, she knew he knew, she decided to do something permanent about it ... there may be other complications but I'm fairly sure, as a layman, the prosecution would have brought that to the jury's attention. Likewise the defense would attempt to smear him and make him out to be a controlling, terrible abuser - but there is scant evidence of enough abuse that would lead to insanity plea to get you off a murder charge in this instance
----------------------------------------
I don't know what it is, but its weird and pissed off!
I'm amazed at being able to try her on double jeapordy...
In America double jeopardy is a constitutional right. The judge would have thanked the jury and she would've walked out of the court a free woman.