*/
Truth or proof?
A Very English Scandal , BBC 1
Directed by Stephen Frears and written by Russell T Davies | Based on A Very English Scandal: Sex, Lies and a Murder Plot at the Heart of Establishment , by John Preston (Penguin) | Starring Hugh Grant as Jeremy Thorpe and Ben Whishaw as Norman Scott | Broadcast May - June 2018
So, which is it, members of the jury, Truth or Proof? On reflection, don’t answer that. Were you to pick Truth, it would upset the whole system. Which is why I think My Brother Cantley was teased a little unfairly by the brilliant Mr Peter Cook, hilarious though it was. You see, in those days we all commented on the evidence. Thirteenth member of the jury, remember? And if you heard that the chief prosecution witness would double his money on conviction, wouldn’t you get a bit heated? That, of course, is why they acquitted. On the evidence. Most juries would have done exactly the same thing.
And thereby hangs a tale. The prosecution, Peter Taylor QC and John Bull, acting with ramrod integrity, chose deliberately not to add Conspiracy to Threaten to the indictment. They reasoned that if they were to prosecute a top politician alleging planned murder, they should not provide a watered-down compromise. I doubt if many prosecutors today would have taken the same line.
But the television rehash was absolutely brilliant. Superb script, cracking direction. All so long ago, but sadly, people really did talk about effing queers and pronounce Homosexual in capital letters. A different age and I don’t defend it for a moment, but any adaptation had to get that dead right. Which they did. So as a piece of drama, it was right up there with Brideshead Revisited. Almost as good as it gets. Hugh Grant gave the performance of a lifetime and far more than a clever impersonation. He recreated the man, warts and all. Do you remember Grant’s eyes when Thorpe was told of the death of his first wife? A masterclass in great acting and I hope he gets every award going. If that gets up the noses of the haters of Hacked Off, so much the better. Ben Whishaw was also pretty impressive as poor, troubled, anguished Norman Scott. And despite the inevitable black humour – Dunstable for Barnstable mistakenly first visited by the would-be killer – the shooting of Rinka was chilling. Quite right too. There is nothing funny about attempted murder. Peter Bessell was also excellently captured by Alex Jennings And Adrian Scarborough made a very good fist of George Carman. Pity they maligned Emlyn Hooson QC.
"Which brings me to the legal bits. As always, drama occasionally trumped reality. Like George Carman leaving counsel’s row to strut his stuff before the jury. But you know, it was much better than most television adaptations of our world"
Which brings me to the legal bits. As always, drama occasionally trumped reality. Like George Carman leaving counsel’s row to strut his stuff before the jury. But you know, it was much better than most television adaptations of our world. Though I could have done with a lot more of Carmen’s cross-examination of Bessell. All of which takes us back to Thorpe, who wisely accepted firm advice not to give evidence. People forget what a brilliant and charismatic figure he was. Being driven back on Circuit, I occasionally caught Any Questions. That Oxford Union persona went down a treat with Middle England and down in the West Country, he was a very good constituency MP. Still, batting both ways is never easy. Or so they say. And shenanigans in your mother’s house is off the scale in human folly.
So members of the jury, about that question again. Today, when we know so much more. I think Tom Mangold got it spot on in his forgotten Panorama programme. Norman Scott spoke the truth and didn’t do himself any favours, but the doors of the Establishment closed tight. All a long time ago, but not, I suspect, for him. Well, thanks for listening, but I must push off now. They’re running The Good Old Days on BBC 4.
Reviewer Nigel Pascoe QC, who may have been talking to an old judge (or maybe not)
So, which is it, members of the jury, Truth or Proof? On reflection, don’t answer that. Were you to pick Truth, it would upset the whole system. Which is why I think My Brother Cantley was teased a little unfairly by the brilliant Mr Peter Cook, hilarious though it was. You see, in those days we all commented on the evidence. Thirteenth member of the jury, remember? And if you heard that the chief prosecution witness would double his money on conviction, wouldn’t you get a bit heated? That, of course, is why they acquitted. On the evidence. Most juries would have done exactly the same thing.
And thereby hangs a tale. The prosecution, Peter Taylor QC and John Bull, acting with ramrod integrity, chose deliberately not to add Conspiracy to Threaten to the indictment. They reasoned that if they were to prosecute a top politician alleging planned murder, they should not provide a watered-down compromise. I doubt if many prosecutors today would have taken the same line.
But the television rehash was absolutely brilliant. Superb script, cracking direction. All so long ago, but sadly, people really did talk about effing queers and pronounce Homosexual in capital letters. A different age and I don’t defend it for a moment, but any adaptation had to get that dead right. Which they did. So as a piece of drama, it was right up there with Brideshead Revisited. Almost as good as it gets. Hugh Grant gave the performance of a lifetime and far more than a clever impersonation. He recreated the man, warts and all. Do you remember Grant’s eyes when Thorpe was told of the death of his first wife? A masterclass in great acting and I hope he gets every award going. If that gets up the noses of the haters of Hacked Off, so much the better. Ben Whishaw was also pretty impressive as poor, troubled, anguished Norman Scott. And despite the inevitable black humour – Dunstable for Barnstable mistakenly first visited by the would-be killer – the shooting of Rinka was chilling. Quite right too. There is nothing funny about attempted murder. Peter Bessell was also excellently captured by Alex Jennings And Adrian Scarborough made a very good fist of George Carman. Pity they maligned Emlyn Hooson QC.
"Which brings me to the legal bits. As always, drama occasionally trumped reality. Like George Carman leaving counsel’s row to strut his stuff before the jury. But you know, it was much better than most television adaptations of our world"
Which brings me to the legal bits. As always, drama occasionally trumped reality. Like George Carman leaving counsel’s row to strut his stuff before the jury. But you know, it was much better than most television adaptations of our world. Though I could have done with a lot more of Carmen’s cross-examination of Bessell. All of which takes us back to Thorpe, who wisely accepted firm advice not to give evidence. People forget what a brilliant and charismatic figure he was. Being driven back on Circuit, I occasionally caught Any Questions. That Oxford Union persona went down a treat with Middle England and down in the West Country, he was a very good constituency MP. Still, batting both ways is never easy. Or so they say. And shenanigans in your mother’s house is off the scale in human folly.
So members of the jury, about that question again. Today, when we know so much more. I think Tom Mangold got it spot on in his forgotten Panorama programme. Norman Scott spoke the truth and didn’t do himself any favours, but the doors of the Establishment closed tight. All a long time ago, but not, I suspect, for him. Well, thanks for listening, but I must push off now. They’re running The Good Old Days on BBC 4.
Reviewer Nigel Pascoe QC, who may have been talking to an old judge (or maybe not)
Truth or proof?
A Very English Scandal, BBC 1
Directed by Stephen Frears and written by Russell T Davies | Based on A Very English Scandal: Sex, Lies and a Murder Plot at the Heart of Establishment, by John Preston (Penguin) | Starring Hugh Grant as Jeremy Thorpe and Ben Whishaw as Norman Scott | Broadcast May - June 2018
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
On the 50th anniversary of the pub bombings, even now it is still unresolved. Chris Mullin, the journalist and former MP who led the campaign leading to the release of the Birmingham Six, looks back at events
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
One year on and the Court of Appeal fails to quash convictions after receiving evidence of racism in the jury room, and there are still no revisions to the Equal Treatment Bench Book , says Keir Monteith KC
A cultural life and times