Garrow's Law - anyone in the UK catch this?

[Holdfast]

I usually don't think much of Sunday evening dramas, but the BBC have a potential corker here. Garrow's Law could grow into a great drama. It's set in the 18th century legal world of the criminal courts of the Old Bailey and follows a young barrister called (yes, you guessed it) William Garrow.

Garrow is a bit of loud-mouthed arrogant wannabe world-changer, but with enough wit and intelligence to keep him charming and passionate rather than naive and irritating. The first episode had him taking on his first couple of cases. I won't spoil the plotline, but it's enough to say that the stories were effective and just complex enough to be intriguing without requiring you to pay too much attention, letting you enjoy the ride of the courtroom antics.

William Garrow actually existed, though if you haven't heard of him, I wouldn't google him or one guesses future episodes might be spoiled, assuming the series gets a good run. Also, the cases in the show are "based" (how much, who knows...) on real trials in the Old Bailey, which adds a fair bit to the enjoyment of the series.

The setting is wonderfully depicted with the usual BBC attention to period detail and there's a good cast too. The lovely Lyndsey Marshal as Lady Sarah is clearly being set up as an illicit love interest; and the reliable Alun Armstrong does a great character turn as Garrow's solicitor and mentor. But I also liked the smaller roles by the judge and the prosecuting barrister who through inflection and tone of voice deftly managed to turn potentially unlikable characters into quite charming caricatures of an unfair legal system.

Finally, anyone fleetingly familiar with 18th century art (and I don't claim more than fleeting familiarity) will also get a kick out of the series, because I have a feeling that several scenes had quite deliberate recreations or at least reimagining of several paintings of that era. In particular, there's a scene of the barristers hanging around the Old Bailey, waiting to get their briefs, which seemed a direct recreation of a painting, though I forget the name of the artist.

If you're in the UK, I recommend catching it on iPlayer. If you're outside the UK, well, maybe you'll find another way to watch!

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Ahem.

I haven't got round to watching it yet, but I did record it. I was planning on watching today.

OK, I just watched it, and it was interesting. Of course it's dramatised and fictionalised, but it just seems like as much as people seem to complain about justice being a soft touch and defence lawyers twisting the law now, it's a vast improvement over what passed for justice in the past.

 

[Holdfast]

Ahem.

Whoops! Sorry. Any TVM mod around to merge the threads?

I haven't got round to watching it yet, but I did record it. I was planning on watching today.

OK, I just watched it, and it was interesting. Of course it's dramatised and fictionalised, but it just seems like as much as people seem to complain about justice being a soft touch and defence lawyers twisting the law now, it's a vast improvement over what passed for justice in the past.

Yep. Setting the drama in the past made the whole "courtroom drama" genre seem far fresher than more modern courtroom series.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Ahem.

OK, I just watched it, and it was interesting. Of course it's dramatised and fictionalised, but it just seems like as much as people seem to complain about justice being a soft touch and defence lawyers twisting the law now, it's a vast improvement over what passed for justice in the past.

Yep. Setting the drama in the past made the whole "courtroom drama" genre seem far fresher than more modern courtroom series.[/QUOTE]

I agree, aside from Boston Legal and Damages I don't generally watch legal dramas but setting it in the past made the injustices seem to hit home rather than artistic license taken by the writer.

 

[BrotherBenny]

I enjoyed it and will continue to watch.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I just watched it on Sky Plus. I enjoyed it a lot. This sort of show wouldn't normally be my thing but the settings and the fact of it being based o a true story hooked me in. The cast was likeable and the roles well played. Story a little cliched but I liked how they didn't shirk away from the horror of the judicial system of the time - a thief being branded, an almost-certainly innocent man being sent to the gallows. And no reprive for either.

A good watchable drama but perhaps also food for thought in a nation obsessed with 'rebalancing the legal system in favour of the victim' and 'getting tough on criminals' - ie setting things back to the days before Garrow and his types reformed it for the better.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I just watched it on Sky Plus. I enjoyed it a lot. This sort of show wouldn't normally be my thing but the settings and the fact of it being based o a true story hooked me in. The cast was likeable and the roles well played. Story a little cliched but I liked how they didn't shirk away from the horror of the judicial system of the time - a thief being branded, an almost-certainly innocent man being sent to the gallows. And no reprive for either.

A good watchable drama but perhaps also food for thought in a nation obsessed with 'rebalancing the legal system in favour of the victim' and 'getting tough on criminals' - ie setting things back to the days before Garrow and his types reformed it for the better.

Yeah, we're always hearing "the law is too soft" and "Defence lawyers twist the system" but things like this show you how fucked up the law can be when there's no counter balance.

I do think there needs to be legal reforms but not of the "good old days" sort.

 

[Holdfast]

... perhaps also food for thought in a nation obsessed with 'rebalancing the legal system in favour of the victim' and 'getting tough on criminals'...

A bit off topic, but what the hell... I take your basic point, but personally have no problem with getting tough on criminals. What I do have an issue with is making it easier to convict (as it was in Garrow's day for instance). It should be bloody hard to convict someone, with the system heavily favouring assumption of the defendant's innocence and a high burden of proof required for conviction. However, once convicted, I have no problem at all with harsh penalties for the criminal.

What I dislike with what's going on the legal system over the recent past is that the exact opposite seems to be happening - the burden of proof required is gradually being eroded in various ways, making conviction easier. But at the same time, the penalties are also becoming lighter. It should be totally the other way round!

 

[Bob The Skutter]

... perhaps also food for thought in a nation obsessed with 'rebalancing the legal system in favour of the victim' and 'getting tough on criminals'...

A bit off topic, but what the hell... I take your basic point, but personally have no problem with getting tough on criminals. What I do have an issue with is making it easier to convict (as it was in Garrow's day for instance). It should be bloody hard to convict someone, with the system heavily favouring assumption of the defendant's innocence and a high burden of proof required for conviction. However, once convicted, I have no problem at all with harsh penalties for the criminal.

What I dislike with what's going on the legal system over the recent past is that the exact opposite seems to be happening - the burden of proof required is gradually being eroded in various ways, making conviction easier. But at the same time, the penalties are also becoming lighter. It should be totally the other way round!

I pretty much agree with you, but I kinda have a variant of the three strikes system in my head that I don't know if it would work or not, and obviously would depend on the seriousness of the crime.
Strike 1 would see light prison time coupled with educational/vocational training, try to instil some pride in work etc. so people who've committed crime because they're unemployed/under-privileged/lacked education and training to get a job would be less likely to commit crime because of their circumstances.

Stike 2 would be heavier prison terms coupled with psychological help for people who really do have a deep seated problem that leads to reoffending.

Strike 3 would just be hard time, whether just long prison sentences or prison time with hard labour involved, I think at this point it should be punishment, because after serious attempts to rehabilitate they're still committing crimes.

 

[cultcross]

^ One of the absolutely massive flaws in our current legal system is that repeat offending will not make your sentence measureably worse. Your 6th conviction for burglary will be sentenced within a few months of the same as your first. That is monumentally stupid, imho, and draws no distinction between first time offenders, some of which may have simply made stupid mistakes, or been drawn into places they don't want to be, and career criminals who scoff at the law abiding citizen. I absolutely support further convictions for the same offence being punished sequentially more harshly.

On the whole, I agree with Holdy too - although I'm not a big advocate of really harsh criminal punishment, it has got pretty ridiculous at the moment because custodial sentences for summary offences are almost a thing of the past because we refuse to expand the prison system for a larger population. Meanwhile, burden of proof seems to be slipping away under a media and special interest group onslaught.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Depends on what you mean by "really harsh"? I'm not one for capital, corporal or psychological punishment, but long sentences for repeat offenders, little in the way of luxury. But on the other hand I think they need to sort out drugs policy so addicts aren't treated as criminals, unless they commit criminal acts while high/to get drugs, rather than just for being on/possessing drugs.

 

[cultcross]

^Depends on what you mean by "really harsh"? I'm not one for capital, corporal or psychological punishment, but long sentences for repeat offenders, little in the way of luxury. But on the other hand I think they need to sort out drugs policy so addicts aren't treated as criminals, unless they commit criminal acts while high/to get drugs, rather than just for being on/possessing drugs.

To be honest, simple possession of drugs for personal use, even class A, is a long way from a lengthy sentence these days. The justice system is much more interested in the supply line, not the final client.
Drug addicts who don't deal are much more likely to end up in prison for acquisitive crime (burglary and robbery, mostly) to pay for their addiction. I've known people whove had £300 a day heroin habits. Just consider the cash flow you'd need to keep that up.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Depends on what you mean by "really harsh"? I'm not one for capital, corporal or psychological punishment, but long sentences for repeat offenders, little in the way of luxury. But on the other hand I think they need to sort out drugs policy so addicts aren't treated as criminals, unless they commit criminal acts while high/to get drugs, rather than just for being on/possessing drugs.

To be honest, simple possession of drugs for personal use, even class A, is a long way from a lengthy sentence these days. The justice system is much more interested in the supply line, not the final client.
Drug addicts who don't deal are much more likely to end up in prison for acquisitive crime (burglary and robbery, mostly) to pay for their addiction. I've known people whove had £300 a day heroin habits. Just consider the cash flow you'd need to keep that up.

Then what's the point in the laws for possession? Dealing sure I can understand, but possession for personal use?
Whole other topic I know.

Who says TV shows today don't foster debate?

 

[cultcross]

Then what's the point in the laws for possession? Dealing sure I can understand, but possession for personal use?
Whole other topic I know.

Oh big can of worms lol the answer the legislators would give lies in supply and demand. But as you say, way off topic for this thread.

Who says TV shows today don't foster debate?

I haven't even seen this one yet! Is it on iPlayer?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Yep. iPlayer link

 

[cultcross]

Ta.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ I should add that my views would not be radically different from those expressed above. I've no problem with tough sentencing for violent or recidivist criminals. But it's things like the watering down of the presumption of innocence and the idea that lawyers representing accused people to the best of their ability is somehow wrong or inequitable that gets my (scape) goat.

 

[Holdfast]

Then what's the point in the laws for possession? Dealing sure I can understand, but possession for personal use?
Whole other topic I know.

Oh big can of worms lol the answer the legislators would give lies in supply and demand. But as you say, way off topic for this thread.

Sure, it is. But to run with it a moment longer, it really boils down to an unwillingness on behalf of the general public (and by extension, elected representatives) to acknowledge the drugs business for what it is - a business. It's actually the perfect capitalist industry and trying to break it through what are essentially tariffs and taxes is always going to backfire. Every tariff and tax will just create market inefficiency and therefore new black market opportunities.

The only way to minimise the illicit drugs trade is to either outcompete it (through legalisation - politically unacceptable) or make it prohibitively expensive to create at source thus reducing profit margins (through extreme imperialist solutions of one form or another in producing countries - also politically unacceptable).

Net outcome - a status quo that doesn't reduce the drug trade (and actually increases it) but is politically acceptable to voters.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Then what's the point in the laws for possession? Dealing sure I can understand, but possession for personal use?
Whole other topic I know.

Oh big can of worms lol the answer the legislators would give lies in supply and demand. But as you say, way off topic for this thread.

Sure, it is. But to run with it a moment longer, it really boils down to an unwillingness on behalf of the general public (and by extension, elected representatives) to acknowledge the drugs business for what it is - a business. It's actually the perfect capitalist industry and trying to break it through what are essentially tariffs and taxes is always going to backfire. Every tariff and tax will just create market inefficiency and therefore new black market opportunities.

The only way to minimise the illicit drugs trade is to either outcompete it (through legalisation - politically unacceptable) or make it prohibitively expensive to create at source thus reducing profit margins (through extreme imperialist solutions of one form or another in producing countries - also politically unacceptable).

Net outcome - a status quo that doesn't reduce the drug trade (and actually increases it) but is politically acceptable to voters.

Yep, that's it in a nutshell. Personally I think the legalisation route would be the best, along with proper, no bullshit education.
I think the current "education" actually causes more problems than it solves because it's mostly scare tactics. When the scare tactics fail and 1 drug is tried and isn't what they said it was it becomes a matter of people thinking everything was a lie, or doesn't apply to them.
Not only would legalisation allow taxation and better enforcement of standards but it would also help the countries where a lot of the drugs are grown and produced, because it would then become a legal trade and reduce the terrorist/gangster/criminal element round the farming and production.

 

[Holdfast]

Another good episode today.

I really liked the quickie trial at the start, showing Garrow is now much more confident in the courtroom, understanding how to engage in witty rapport with both the jury and the public gallery.

The meat of the episode, around the trial of the highly unsympathetic defendant accused of being the "Monster" was a nice parallel to some of the more sensationalist modern trials. Garrow played his hand as well as possible against a stacked deck, using some enjoyable courtroom theatrics (esp. when cross-examining the Porter girl), and finally resorting to abstruse legal chicanery to save his client from the gallows by getting the case referred upwards. The Newgate coda to the episode was a bit predictable and didn't quite work for me emotionally, but so what. The courtroom legal fireworks around the use of the ancient statute was the point and that worked for me. I liked the repeated use of the line "strange in fact but true in law", which echoed through the episode.

I also liked the way Garrow and Lady Sarah are being pushed together, and way the suspicions of her husband are growing.