Judge John Deed

I have definite rules for all television series. Do they hold my attention? Are they well written? Are they well acted? In the case of this series, the answers are yes, yes and yes.

Starting with the writer, nobody seems to mention him. The stories are well crafted, the different strands of each episode are seamless. I assume that Newman either has some knowledge of the law or access to those that do as the words of John Deed make sense to the viewer.

The cast is attractive with a large number of regulars who have stuck with it for some years, always a good sign of their belief in the project. Martin Shaw is always good value for money. The beautiful Jenny Seagrove, (what did she see in Michael Winner), Sir Donald Sinden doing his Donald Sinden act, Christopher Cazenove et als, all turn in quality performances.

Some have seen fit to compare this unfavourably with Rumpole of the Bailey, I cannot see the comparison. This is not played for laughs though there is humour a-plenty. This does not have the "clever" endings. This is a good attempt to portray English justice. At 90 minutes an episode, true things have to be tidied a little. A sub-plot is added and we see the human side of the characters' private lives. Each episode I have watched has held my attention, wholly and completely, to the credit titles at the end.

A better comparison than Rumpole is probably the late, great John Thaw in Kavanagh QC. This, I know, was based on a real character, latterly elevated to the bench before his untimely death, the real Kavanagh was a friend of mine. I do not know if Deed is based on a real judge, or judges, but I would guess at "probably".

I have seen some of the episodes more than once and they do not suffer from repetition. Yes I am a fan, long may Judge John Deed sit on the bench. And at only a handful of episodes a year, this viewer always yearns for his return.

Having been bought up in Australia with a father who was a barrister and once offered a Supreme Court judicial appointment - I have to say that this program goes a long way to showing the true imperialism of the judicial system.

My father rejected the overtures for his own reasons but having watched Deeds I have to say I have seen it all. A judge is a mentor, a guardian, an executioner but most of all a human being. The politics that goes with the position is common.

Look at your own life! Change Deeds into the counselor at school, the mediator in a dispute, the local parish priest, the HR officer at work and somewhere there is a Deeds in it.

To look upon the law and see the stupidity of it is a gift most lack because there is no law just politics and Judge John Deed highlights that more than any law and order program now or in the past. I believe this is the intention of the program. Entertain - definitely - educate on how the system is and can be twisted more than likely.

Watch Deeds and say to yourself "Why is it so =- how can this happen - and how many times has it happened?". Watch again the next week and ask the same question.

Be prepared to think

Martin Shaw is once again excellent in an excellent production. I have never been to court, but can imagine that this is a particularly precise example of the British legal system. I have followed Martin Shaw's career over the years, since he was in The Professionals, and whether through chance or good judgement, he seems to choose roles that fit his stature. The writing in this show is excellent, the actors, almost without exception, extremely professional, and the sly humour just leavens the gravity of the courtroom proceedings.

This is a great legal drama series. The cast is stellar, the dialogue is wonderful, the legal drama is intelligent.

One downside is that the writers limited every courtroom battle to Deed presiding over his ex-wife, his love interest and daughter. The story lines would have been just as compelling even if other barristers had appeared in front of him.

Also, had Deed sabotaged himself in ways other than just sleeping with women who appeared before him, it would have still made for compelling viewing.

Some of the antagonists are written as one dimensional cartoonist villains. There was plenty of scope to make them and their motivations more complex, so we, the audience, could have been more challenged. eg the CEO of the telco acted like a slimy bond villain.

There have been two series so far of this programme. It seems deliberately to set out to contradict the impression of the British legal system portrayed by the excellent "Rumpole of the Bailey", of senile judges and smug arch-conservative barristers.

Here, the main character has radical leanings, a messy private life and a very active libido. Much of the sub-plot is involved with side-swipes at the (Labour) government of the day, although the implication is that power corrupts; the political complexion of the office holders doesn't affect their greed or ambition.

The one common factor with other screen portrayals of the British legal system is the very precise diction and grammar used by barristers and judges. The courtroom scenes are well worth watching.

Some elements of the plot rather strain belief, but the series is quite enjoyable.