If anybody has read or seen Twelve Angry Men, this is a similar concept - except in Reginald Rose's classic play & film, the 'demons' are essentially within the jury room. Here, the Australian legal system is exposed in all its hideous ineptitude, with the DPP the hidden despots.
Without revealing anything about the end verdict, it did strike me - even prior to the Judge asking the jury to consider a 'not guilty pre-verdict' once the Prosecution finished its side of the argument - that the Prosecution's narrative was incredibly circumstantial and flimsy. The jury kept saying 'let's see when the evidence comes' - but it didn't?
Credit to volunteer jurors 1, 4 & 11 for asking for it to be abandoned at this point. This isn't revealing too much given this happens in Episode 3 so no fears that it will be...still 2 episodes to go!
But some research into the real case that it's all based on from many years earlier than the 2022 date provided, indicates that this offer was made to the original jury too. Furthermore, that this was the first case in NSW where 'double jeopardy' was enacted - meaning that these volunteers are the 4th 'jury' empanelled to hear this case, which is as sad an indictment on NSW justice as the police work in the Scott Johnson 'suicide' case.
To be a guinea pig in the experimental new laws of double jeopardy made me feel very sympathetic to the defendant - & one can hardly overlook the fact that he was Asian(Chinese), homosexual & without family support in Australia. Surely this would not have occurred to a 'mainstream' Aussie? The DPP could afford to explore re-visiting this case where media outcry would be minimal & they could see how well their double jeopardy experiment would work.
And of course, classic Aussie male stereotype Craig unknowingly supports their agenda {as a prison officer he's probably just a branch higher on the fascism scale) by leading the 'guilty' posse - ugh! It amazes me that Craig signed up willingly to expose himself in this way - unless he is SO ignorant, or he has issues that go beyond his puffy, pained & stiff demeanor? My only comfort was in hoping that this type of human being would be excluded from a real jury by a Defence lawyer's right to strike out the unfavorable.
My joy was Anya (Juror#11) with the Russian accent - surely this juror number allocation was not accidental by the producers?? Juror 11 in Rose's classic play/film sounds identical & makes the same criticism of another juror's understanding of 'reasonable doubt'. Her commonsense approach to the case, as well as her social awareness, goes beyond sexuality or job description.
Juror#3 Misha is also a revelation: from an inauspicious start with her potatoes & unsuccessful tilt at foreman, she comes good and has a genuine empathy that others don't always appreciate.
Juror#4 Harissa is also sound, sensible and a valuable support to Anya.
Juror#1 had great potential but did not assert himself - disappointing especially considering he was also in a homosexual relationship. We still need all the voices we can muster, young man!
Juror#8 Van is a fabricator of narratives & did much to fill in the gaps of the Prosecution's case (& all based on his own bashing & his Christian values?). A flawed person who unintentionally acted as a foil for Anya's insightfulness - but still a level slightly higher than the odious Craig.
As for the actors, fine performances by Defence lawyer, defendant, young cop, forensic specialist, police pathologist, nosey neighbour & Italian friends of victim. All entirely believable. The judge was okay but somewhat tame while the ex-boyfriend was difficult to fathom at times..I suppose he didn't have much choice in his dialogue though?
So an addictive watch, eliciting all of the emotions and revealing much that is NOT good about our justice system.
As Anya said in her closing comments: 'we must do better'. Hooray to that!
