I felt compelled to put pen to paper myself after watching this thoroughly enjoyable drama, I would say by far the best thing on ITV in 2011 Purefoy is at his best with a great support cast in Miles, Diveney, Parker and Dunning. Love to see more of this in the future, the writing is from Anthony Horowitz known for Foyles War, Murder in Mind, Midsommer Murders and The Gift. In the beginning you see only success from Travers lifestyle but it soon unravels into a web of intrigue, not everything is what it seems, flashbacks are used to build a powerful story of a man with a secret in his past, will it catch up with him?
29 Reviews
Are you telling me the truth?
blanche-229 March 2020
James Purefoy plays William Travers, an attorney who is very disturbed by "Injustice" in this 2011 miniseries.
Travers is so disturbed by injustice that when one of clients, Spaull, is found not guilty and laughingly informs Travers that he is, Travers has a complete breakdown. We don't see it; it is alluded to during the show. The Spaull's act was responsible for the death of a small boy, who appears to Travers from time to time. So one has to wonder if he's truly back to normal.
In the meantime, Spraull is found murdered, and an evil detective D.I. Wenborn (Charlie Creed-Miles) is investigating. I have to say that Creed-Miles is either a fabulous actor or the worst human being on earth because I can't remember hating a character as much as I hated this character.
Travers is approached by an old college friend (Nathaniel Parker) who is charged with the murder of a young woman who worked in his office. Travers takes the case, which becomes very complicated.
That's all I'll say. The acting is wonderful from the entire cast, Purefoy and Creed-Miles being standouts.
Highly recommended.
Travers is so disturbed by injustice that when one of clients, Spaull, is found not guilty and laughingly informs Travers that he is, Travers has a complete breakdown. We don't see it; it is alluded to during the show. The Spaull's act was responsible for the death of a small boy, who appears to Travers from time to time. So one has to wonder if he's truly back to normal.
In the meantime, Spraull is found murdered, and an evil detective D.I. Wenborn (Charlie Creed-Miles) is investigating. I have to say that Creed-Miles is either a fabulous actor or the worst human being on earth because I can't remember hating a character as much as I hated this character.
Travers is approached by an old college friend (Nathaniel Parker) who is charged with the murder of a young woman who worked in his office. Travers takes the case, which becomes very complicated.
That's all I'll say. The acting is wonderful from the entire cast, Purefoy and Creed-Miles being standouts.
Highly recommended.
A very different approach to suspense ... works a treat
A_Different_Drummer24 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
First we start with the talent. Horowitz may well be one of those rare writers who could not pen a bad script even if he tried. Purefoy possibly one of the most under-rated A-listers around, he has the ability to ground an entire film (or mini-series), at the same time projecting intelligence, sophistication and most importantly likability. And Creed-Miles, an unexpected bonus, practically hypnotic in his ability to jump from one emotional extreme to another in about the time it takes for the Enterprise to reach Warp Speed.
That said, I flagged this mini-series as a "different kind of suspense" and I am sticking to that review.
I cannot easily recall a story that so challenges the viewer to engage with the characters. It is one thing to use flashbacks to reveal the history of a character at the appropriate time. It is another entirely to parcel out bits and pieces of the backstory here and there, as if offering tiny bowls of porridge to the central character in OLIVER.
The twist (to this reviewer) is not the story itself (that is more of an obstacle course, with the first one to reach the end winning) but that the writer (Horowitz) understood off the top that it is hard to connect with the story if you do not understand the characters.
And to be frank all the characters here are a little loopy and not entirely sympathetic. (Both Purefoy and Creed-Miles for example are arguably two sides of the very same coin, neither good nor bad, neither sane nor certifiable.)
So, by the finale, that is the brilliance of Injustice. It draws the viewer along even without a sympathetic character, even with blurred plot arcs and even though you are never entirely sure who you should be cheering on.
Impressive.
That said, I flagged this mini-series as a "different kind of suspense" and I am sticking to that review.
I cannot easily recall a story that so challenges the viewer to engage with the characters. It is one thing to use flashbacks to reveal the history of a character at the appropriate time. It is another entirely to parcel out bits and pieces of the backstory here and there, as if offering tiny bowls of porridge to the central character in OLIVER.
The twist (to this reviewer) is not the story itself (that is more of an obstacle course, with the first one to reach the end winning) but that the writer (Horowitz) understood off the top that it is hard to connect with the story if you do not understand the characters.
And to be frank all the characters here are a little loopy and not entirely sympathetic. (Both Purefoy and Creed-Miles for example are arguably two sides of the very same coin, neither good nor bad, neither sane nor certifiable.)
So, by the finale, that is the brilliance of Injustice. It draws the viewer along even without a sympathetic character, even with blurred plot arcs and even though you are never entirely sure who you should be cheering on.
Impressive.
Excellent mystery thriller
JohnRayPeterson3 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
To best convince you that this is a great series, short as it is, I'll be spoiling most of the plot. That's how convinced I am that a spoiler can also be a seller. William Travers, played by James Purefoy is an extremely successful barrister; we see him in action right from the start and so have little difficulty with the sometimes references to his reputation as a formidable lawyer. What we also learn midway the short five sequels episodes, is that he's prepared to risk his license by walking away from a case if he loses trust in his client; defending innocent people is his sole mission and he does not accept cases if he has doubts about a prospect client's innocence.
Unlike TV series which themes deal with justice, the law and police investigations, this series is more like five a part movie about a uncommon defence lawyer. He spares no effort turning every stone and considering any detail that might help prove all his clients' innocence; an hour TV episode or a two hour regular movie would usually feature an "eureka" moment but not "INJUSTICE". No 'Cracker Jack' storyline here to meet a production deadline.
We rout for Travers with each small piece of information he and his team manage to gather for their case. The case in play here is a murder trial where the accused is an old friend; Travers had previously sworn never to work murder cases after the mental breakdown he suffered following what should have been his last successful murder case. We are confronted by bits and pieces relating to that former case; we are made to understand that a young boy was killed by the blast of a bomb and that the man responsible, an extremist animal rights activist had fooled Travers in believing in his innocence. Episode after episode show glimpses of Travers, flashes of memory, assassinating his former client out of a sense of justice, but this culmination of his mental breakdown only heightens our doubt about his current case. We slowly develop doubts and questions for which we cannot form simple answers. Might he be falling into another similar trap? Developments point to his current client's innocence while the case also becomes more and more difficult for his client; the more challenging it gets, the more we lean on the side of his innocence. Travers mental state has not been remedied despite what all around him perceive. The more predictable it should become, the less it in fact does.
To make matters more interesting to the audience, the most despicable detective inspector on the force, DS Mark Wenborn (played superbly by Charlie Creed-Miles), is making slow but clearly cumulative progress that he hopes will result in charging Travers with the murder of his former client, a prospect which unleashes Wenborn into all sorts of abuses of authority toward his goal. It's personal for Wenborn. He might have only stumbled on small clues at first, but his resentment of Travers fuels his vile ambitions.
Five episodes allow us to get to know the main characters in their personal lives, not just as officers of the law or of the court; we follow them with their families and colleagues and so we can relate to them as ordinary persons. Sympathy, empathy, support builds for barrister Travers, while we loathe Wenborn. We get emotionally interested in the characters. Something European productions are far better at incorporating in their scripts; the resulting production is richer and has thus more depth. I'm abstaining for revealing more; there are indeed more, even intertwined sub-plots that had me addicted to watch "INJUSTICE". Few have taken the time to write reviews and or to vote, but the weighted average rating of 8.2 supports my conclusion that this is well worth watching and I hesitate not in recommending it.
Unlike TV series which themes deal with justice, the law and police investigations, this series is more like five a part movie about a uncommon defence lawyer. He spares no effort turning every stone and considering any detail that might help prove all his clients' innocence; an hour TV episode or a two hour regular movie would usually feature an "eureka" moment but not "INJUSTICE". No 'Cracker Jack' storyline here to meet a production deadline.
We rout for Travers with each small piece of information he and his team manage to gather for their case. The case in play here is a murder trial where the accused is an old friend; Travers had previously sworn never to work murder cases after the mental breakdown he suffered following what should have been his last successful murder case. We are confronted by bits and pieces relating to that former case; we are made to understand that a young boy was killed by the blast of a bomb and that the man responsible, an extremist animal rights activist had fooled Travers in believing in his innocence. Episode after episode show glimpses of Travers, flashes of memory, assassinating his former client out of a sense of justice, but this culmination of his mental breakdown only heightens our doubt about his current case. We slowly develop doubts and questions for which we cannot form simple answers. Might he be falling into another similar trap? Developments point to his current client's innocence while the case also becomes more and more difficult for his client; the more challenging it gets, the more we lean on the side of his innocence. Travers mental state has not been remedied despite what all around him perceive. The more predictable it should become, the less it in fact does.
To make matters more interesting to the audience, the most despicable detective inspector on the force, DS Mark Wenborn (played superbly by Charlie Creed-Miles), is making slow but clearly cumulative progress that he hopes will result in charging Travers with the murder of his former client, a prospect which unleashes Wenborn into all sorts of abuses of authority toward his goal. It's personal for Wenborn. He might have only stumbled on small clues at first, but his resentment of Travers fuels his vile ambitions.
Five episodes allow us to get to know the main characters in their personal lives, not just as officers of the law or of the court; we follow them with their families and colleagues and so we can relate to them as ordinary persons. Sympathy, empathy, support builds for barrister Travers, while we loathe Wenborn. We get emotionally interested in the characters. Something European productions are far better at incorporating in their scripts; the resulting production is richer and has thus more depth. I'm abstaining for revealing more; there are indeed more, even intertwined sub-plots that had me addicted to watch "INJUSTICE". Few have taken the time to write reviews and or to vote, but the weighted average rating of 8.2 supports my conclusion that this is well worth watching and I hesitate not in recommending it.
Interesting but over long
pensman9 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
James Purefoy, Mark Anthony in Rome, plays defense attorney William Travers, an attorney with a defect: he has to believe in the innocence of his client to take a case. It is a defect because what would happen if he got a client off and it turned out they had been guilty. How would Travers live with the guilt; and that is the premise of this mini-series. Purefoy does an excellent job and he has some able backup in Dervla Kirwan, his wife here but remembered from Ballylissangel; and Nathaniel Parker, an old friend accused or murder but again recalled as the lead from The Inspector Lynley Mysteries. Kirwan engages in a sub plot as a retired editor who is now teaching juvenile offenders in prison but takes an interest in one of her charges who shows promise as a writer. Charlie Creed-Miles plays DI Wenborn, a highly flawed detective who beats his wife and is not above planting evidence, as a Javert like detective who would like nothing better then finding a way to discredit Travers who cost a fellow police officer his job. All of the plot twists do come together at the conclusion but each viewer will have to decide how satisfying or unsatisfying is the conclusion.
Revenge is sweet AND not fattening... Alfred Hitchcock.
zaenkney24 November 2012
Although Horowitz created this series, I swear I saw the ghost of Hitchcock pacing in the background. Eerily, his prints hoovered just off the pages of script, evident in pacing, tone and tenor and I wonder if the honourable he and Mr. Horowitz wrote the denouement in one mind.
Yes, Purefoy (Travers) was excellent as a the subdued, yet stalk-on rigorous attorney, eying both the prosecution and his client throughout the trial. Moreover, the flashbacks of life before rural Suffolk, as well as the choppy shots of the murder of Spaull, were done in a coherent, easy manner with which to keep pace. The insinuations of a 'breakdown' in Travers' past was another great possible portent of pitiful prospects that sent frissons up my spine. Was he going to fall apart and go on a spree, will it come off short, constrained by the so-called British sangfroid? And again my thoughts returned to Hitch, who could have only contributed to this series through the breath of his spirit and his lasting influence on a talented Horowitz. Hitch was admittedly afraid of many things, in fact, he once said "The only way to get rid of my fears is to make films about them."
The support actors were brilliant! Dervla Kirwan is always spot-on. Although I have never watched Charlie Creed-Miles before, I can honestly say, I just hated him in such a good way! Can't wait to see him in something else.
In conclusion, this is a great UK miniseries with 5 episodes that keep one interested and, I would say, entertained. Give it a watch, you'll have no regrets.
Yes, Purefoy (Travers) was excellent as a the subdued, yet stalk-on rigorous attorney, eying both the prosecution and his client throughout the trial. Moreover, the flashbacks of life before rural Suffolk, as well as the choppy shots of the murder of Spaull, were done in a coherent, easy manner with which to keep pace. The insinuations of a 'breakdown' in Travers' past was another great possible portent of pitiful prospects that sent frissons up my spine. Was he going to fall apart and go on a spree, will it come off short, constrained by the so-called British sangfroid? And again my thoughts returned to Hitch, who could have only contributed to this series through the breath of his spirit and his lasting influence on a talented Horowitz. Hitch was admittedly afraid of many things, in fact, he once said "The only way to get rid of my fears is to make films about them."
The support actors were brilliant! Dervla Kirwan is always spot-on. Although I have never watched Charlie Creed-Miles before, I can honestly say, I just hated him in such a good way! Can't wait to see him in something else.
In conclusion, this is a great UK miniseries with 5 episodes that keep one interested and, I would say, entertained. Give it a watch, you'll have no regrets.
The actual culprit in this show ...
Pegasus-1020 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Was the hairstylist for the character Jane. Couldn't quite get past thinking she was going to comb out that bird's nest any minute. Her character was too much involved in the storyline and the whole class-in-juvenile-detention plot could have been dropped, including the coincidence of where the kid got his weapon. There was one glaring cliff-hanger, too: even if the detective wasn't there, wouldn't that gun-supplier have showed up to change his story anyway?
Fantastic
Ditzy-Gypsy22 July 2011
If I had given up because it was a tiny bit slower than the pace I was expecting up until about 3/4 of the way through the first episode, I'd have missed some fantastic entertainment. It was probably only slow to me because I'd just finished watching the movie about Cleveland mobster, Danny Greene, so my pulse was still pounding a bit. (I tend to really like biographical stories). This is a great story full of some really unexpected twists and very real and flawed characters who just pull you into the story even more. I loved it. The actors are not known to me --I'm in western Canada-- but that doesn't mean anything, because I usually forget the actors and only remember their characters if they've done a good job (plus I'm kind of ditzy with names). And they did an incredible job. If it were a regular TV show, I'd probably go and get cable again (I mostly rely on books and movies lately). Thank you to my friend, KJ, for insisting I watch it.
A bit over-sophisticated, yet good British miniseries
BeneCumb23 March 2016
Similar to Scandinavian crime thrillers, the British ones are also the ones I try to see as soon/much as possible. Some are great, others good, but never disappointing or causing blah! feelings.
Injustice has an unusual number of episodes - 5 - and is a fair mind- twister, where events and destinies intertwine and attitudes and opinions go back into decades before. True, not all characters and scenes are of equal importance and credibility (e.g. DI Mark Wenborn), and some crucial points were revealed too far, but James Purefoy's performance in particular and skilfully captured spirit provide the series with suitable and thrilling background. Unless you are used to the model "one case per episode", you can definitely obtain good memories from the one in question.
Referring to the final episode, one could have suspected the following season, but "so far - not good".
Injustice has an unusual number of episodes - 5 - and is a fair mind- twister, where events and destinies intertwine and attitudes and opinions go back into decades before. True, not all characters and scenes are of equal importance and credibility (e.g. DI Mark Wenborn), and some crucial points were revealed too far, but James Purefoy's performance in particular and skilfully captured spirit provide the series with suitable and thrilling background. Unless you are used to the model "one case per episode", you can definitely obtain good memories from the one in question.
Referring to the final episode, one could have suspected the following season, but "so far - not good".
Great series with a few technical flaws...
huntgod11 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Purefoy is excellent, I've been a fan since Rome. The supporting cast is also excellent, Creed-Miles does a fantastic job of being completely horrible, you truly relish hating him.
It's well plotted and written, the dialogue and exchanges are sharp and spot on, all in all a really well done series, I am looking forward to a possible second series if they decide to produce it.
Now for the caveats ---SPOILER WARNING--- The show was perfect up til the final reveal where they butchered the explanation and timelines. The CC coverage was established for the area, so there would have been footage of him entering the hotel and leaving TWICE, which would have been a flag, also every time an electronic door is accessed on a hotel room, it logs the open and close as well as the interval between and associates it to the key, so there would have been a clear log showing him returning, and the time, then leaving again. I assumed this wasn't brought up earlier because the "actual killer" was a professional that altered or modified the logs, this wasn't the case and there was no opportunity to fix the logs.
All in all it was a shame that an otherwise brilliant series fell apart at the end with a poorly thought out explanation.
It's well plotted and written, the dialogue and exchanges are sharp and spot on, all in all a really well done series, I am looking forward to a possible second series if they decide to produce it.
Now for the caveats ---SPOILER WARNING--- The show was perfect up til the final reveal where they butchered the explanation and timelines. The CC coverage was established for the area, so there would have been footage of him entering the hotel and leaving TWICE, which would have been a flag, also every time an electronic door is accessed on a hotel room, it logs the open and close as well as the interval between and associates it to the key, so there would have been a clear log showing him returning, and the time, then leaving again. I assumed this wasn't brought up earlier because the "actual killer" was a professional that altered or modified the logs, this wasn't the case and there was no opportunity to fix the logs.
All in all it was a shame that an otherwise brilliant series fell apart at the end with a poorly thought out explanation.
Good show
Laight24 April 2022
Anthony Horowitz (Foyle's War, etc) is one of the best tv crime and mystery writers the UK has, and despite this not being one of his better programs, it's still very much worth watching. The problems are in the plotting: it could have been a full hour less and there's too much foreshadowing of the final scenes, which are far too predicable. But still, it's a solid show and while James Purefoy is, as always, terrific, it's Charlie Creed-Miles who steals the show in a highly unsympathetic role.
Great entertainment
rgu-2974431 July 2018
Spoilers- Do not read if you have not seen it
jk-692-23639428 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
So I was left a bit confused. He murdered the 2nd fellow and he got away with that too? So is he the murdering justice lawyer? I think it is a ripe set up for another series. Ala Dexter. But obviously not as gory. Still there is satisfaction to be gained from seeing the criminals get theirs. I have never seen James Purefoy in anything and I thought he was quite good, and the actress who played his wife. I never understood what the young guy was in jail for. That whole story confused me. I googled it to try to see if any reviews explained it, but the first two episodes were so slow I did FF'ed through some of it so I may of missed that part. I was glad the mean cop got murdered. He was dreadful.
Good but should have been better
kane-4366812 March 2019
I enjoyed this series but it never quite became as gripping as i felt it should have been. A little slow and dull. Maybe fewer episodes might have helped to speed things up a little. Worth watching but no more than that.
Now and then ITV actually broadcasts a decent programme
Corky198421 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Injustice is exactly the kind of well-written drama series that ITV should be making more of. The plot centres on a seemingly high-flying lawyer, William Travers, who enjoys the trappings of wealth and is known for his success in court. The 5 episodes, however, show that his life is far more complex. Feeling guilty that one of his clients was acquitted of murder but later confessed privately to him that he had actually killed a young boy, Travers kills the man. We then follow the police investigation, as the moody and emotionally unstable DS Wenborn begins to track the killer. Worlds are about to collide, but Wenborn's life unravels more dramatically than could be expected. Travers, back in London defending an old university friend from a charge of murder, has deja vu when it emerges that his 'friend' is really a sick killer...the show finishes with Travers seemingly let off the hook.
Gripping for 2 episodes but predictable ending
osbaba7 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
There are three plot lines. One, the case that the barrister is currently taking. An old case and a story of the barrister's wife's interest in a youth in a detention center. The third is used to tie up the second in an absolutely implausible co-incidence. That's when the series jumped the shark. The second plot line was clearly end up in only failure for the police. And the first was obvious from the minute they showed the CC camera shots. It was clear where the laptop was. So, the last 2 episodes were completely predictable. It goes just a bit above average for the good start.
If it had been shorter at 3 episodes, it would have been a lot tighter.
If it had been shorter at 3 episodes, it would have been a lot tighter.
More please
heibeinh24 August 2020
Very enjoyable...except for one thing!
paulgraves1013 April 2022
If you can get past the first episode.........
qui_j16 September 2018
This is a slow moving series that will reward the viewers if they can get past the first episode. That episode does little to draw the viewer into the story since it is mainly a series of flash backs that offer little explanation about their purpose, the characters, or the plot. It seems to represent just the perspective of the Director as to only what he thinks viewers need to know at that moment in time. It almost resulted in my discontinuing to watch half way through that episode. I'm glad I stuck with it! The first episode just has too many unknowns for viewers to engage, start to build or understand the character connections, and the nature of the plot itself. It's a bit like a slow weave that has to go through a number of rows before one sees the pattern emerge. However, it is quite clever....just not for everyone!
Why wasn't there a second season?
CitizenCairParavel7 January 2019
Best thing about this drama was Charlie Creed-Miles...
210west5 May 2023
... though the character he plays is thoroughly unlikable, indeed repellent, perhaps to an exaggerated degree. Still, he's a fascinating creation.
Actually, the cast was almost universally superb. I was particularly impressed with Nathaniel Parker -- I've never before seen him so convincing -- as well as Kirsty Bushell, Ian Burfield, and Imogen Stubbs.
James Purefoy in the lead role is a bit of a mystery. He's adequate but, as always, pretty shallow and uninteresting, and I don't understand why others on this site praise his performance.
I was glad, incidentally, that this drama was broken up into five 45-minute installments. That was just the right length for me, and it meant that events moved along at a reasonably fast clip.
Actually, the cast was almost universally superb. I was particularly impressed with Nathaniel Parker -- I've never before seen him so convincing -- as well as Kirsty Bushell, Ian Burfield, and Imogen Stubbs.
James Purefoy in the lead role is a bit of a mystery. He's adequate but, as always, pretty shallow and uninteresting, and I don't understand why others on this site praise his performance.
I was glad, incidentally, that this drama was broken up into five 45-minute installments. That was just the right length for me, and it meant that events moved along at a reasonably fast clip.
Gripping but silly plot hole
caabidali16 April 2023
'Injustice ' aptly titled. Whole series revolves around a murder that takes place in a hotel room. Cctv footage around the hotel area is the core around which facts are established. Yet , at the same time cctv footage of the actual hotel lobby , elevetors , room corridors where the crime took place is conveniently kept out of the plot.
How are we supposed to gulp that blunder ? What were the makers thinking? How did they reconcile this huge plot hole ? I want know the rationale to ignore this plot hole . Even a school teacher won't accept this script unless the hole is rationally plugged .
This is not done. I want an explanation or i want 5 hours of my life back. There must be law that makes shows with such big plot holes illegal. It's injustice towards patient viewers . Will sue the makers .
How are we supposed to gulp that blunder ? What were the makers thinking? How did they reconcile this huge plot hole ? I want know the rationale to ignore this plot hole . Even a school teacher won't accept this script unless the hole is rationally plugged .
This is not done. I want an explanation or i want 5 hours of my life back. There must be law that makes shows with such big plot holes illegal. It's injustice towards patient viewers . Will sue the makers .
Watch it for Purefoy
Leofwine_draca1 August 2011
When ITV showed this crime drama over five consecutive nights, my interested was piqued by the presence of James Purefoy, an actor I've been a fan of since I saw him in SOLOMON KANE. I stuck with it for Purefoy alone - he delivers an excellent turn - and am willing to forgive the drama its faults on the basis that it picked a fine actor for its central part.
Otherwise, it's a pretty predictable type of production, throwing together the ingredients so beloved of British TV crime these days: murders, shady blackmailing, adultery, CCTV footage, thugs and horrible crimes in pretty rural locales. The plot is fairly interesting, but the main problem is that there isn't enough story to justify the five hour running time.
The upshot of this is that the production is long winded in the extreme, drip-feeding the viewer flashbacks and clues at an incredibly slow pace before tying everything up in the final episode. Still, Purefoy's angst-ridden turn kept me watching, so it's not all bad.
Otherwise, it's a pretty predictable type of production, throwing together the ingredients so beloved of British TV crime these days: murders, shady blackmailing, adultery, CCTV footage, thugs and horrible crimes in pretty rural locales. The plot is fairly interesting, but the main problem is that there isn't enough story to justify the five hour running time.
The upshot of this is that the production is long winded in the extreme, drip-feeding the viewer flashbacks and clues at an incredibly slow pace before tying everything up in the final episode. Still, Purefoy's angst-ridden turn kept me watching, so it's not all bad.
Preposterous
scottjtepper4 July 2021
Warning: Spoilers
A barrister who specialises in the criminal law who is shocked, just shocked, when his clients lie to him and they aren't innocent! Who woulda thunk it? No one on planet Earth.
The premise is preposterous and the defence barrister as avenging angel is ridiculous.
The screenwriter clearly has no idea what barristers are trained to do, how they think and why they defend criminals, most of whom are -- I know this will come as a great shock -- guilty.
This outlandish piece of creative writing, with its several byways and a cartoonishly horrible police detective is perhaps the worst "legal" drama I have ever had the misfortune to witness.
The premise is preposterous and the defence barrister as avenging angel is ridiculous.
The screenwriter clearly has no idea what barristers are trained to do, how they think and why they defend criminals, most of whom are -- I know this will come as a great shock -- guilty.
This outlandish piece of creative writing, with its several byways and a cartoonishly horrible police detective is perhaps the worst "legal" drama I have ever had the misfortune to witness.
Really
Headturner118 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I can't believe some of the raving about this. I watch 95% all UK series and this was not in the lot with the best of them. The acting from the lead wasn't good bu worse were the suspects I do however like the Irish Kirwan( would have turned it off if not for her. SPOILERS;
So he shoots one man he represents whom he finds out did it. He didn't see the old buddy , colleague was guilty?!? Then he stands in the parking garage giving him a complete , exact , detailed account of what happened. Haha. I mean he had to of known some of that before and then just point blank shoots him and this guy is supposed to only take on clients he thinks not guilty. And it's not justice it's injustice cheezy! Watchable yes, cringeworthy tho.
So he shoots one man he represents whom he finds out did it. He didn't see the old buddy , colleague was guilty?!? Then he stands in the parking garage giving him a complete , exact , detailed account of what happened. Haha. I mean he had to of known some of that before and then just point blank shoots him and this guy is supposed to only take on clients he thinks not guilty. And it's not justice it's injustice cheezy! Watchable yes, cringeworthy tho.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
