|
|
I was enjoying this. It was, kind of scripted, part legal education, kind of a soap opera, altogether.
Though - I did like it as a human story which touched on real moral questions.
With Season one episode two there came a challenge to the viewer. Judge Deed found himself presiding over a trial in which his ex-wife was the lawyer for the defense. Judge and ex-wife were doing battle by citing, back and forth, case law and decisions supporting each other's positions.
Judge Deed's ex-wife is presented to the audience as one of the best lawyers to be found, yet, apparently, she loses an important point in this argument, because she either only cited the parts of the case law which supported her interpretation, and read into the case, no further, or because she did not read more widely into British law to flesh out what consensus had been established by jurisprudence, over the many years regarding culpability in such matters.
That Judge Deed won the moment against one of the best lawyers to be found simply by reading more thoroughly and more broadly, is this challenge to the viewer; that logic, that reasonable plausibility, that simple believable story telling, had to leave the room for a while so that the "math" of the story could work.
It does no good to anyone to coerce a story in this way.
score 4/10
dougls-74067 1 December 2020
Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw6326696/ |
|
18-2-2021 02:32:05