MovieChat Forums > Silk (2011) Discussion > Series 2

Series 2

posted 12 years ago by jamesbloke
4 replies | jump to latest

I'm afraid I'm not enjoying series 2 as much as series 1. It's just a bit too far-fetched now.

For instance, when Martha was defending the prison van chap. Apparently, nobody had previously read that mammoth book of rules and regulations until Martha herself started going through it halfway through the trial. Surely this would have been done by the instructing solicitor and his/her team?!

In an earlier episode, she was defending an army captain at his court-martial. In chambers she was shown a video of some soldiers, one of whom had been killed on patrol. Clive identified the soldier who died, saying he'd seen his picture in the newspapers. Martha assumed this was correct but it was not. Martha failed to check and repeated the mistake in court causing upset to the man's parents. Yeah, right.

[–] Natashashkd 12 years ago

As for the episode with a prison van and that "mammoth" book of rules and regulations: I don't know whether you remember it, but at first, the defendant didn't want to go down that road, i.e. to shift the blame to the company that employed him. Actually, his company and him were co-defendants. However, more than half-way through the trial, Martha asked his permission to change their defense strategy and go after the company, and that's when she raised the issue of the rules and regulations' book at the trial (and the company's defending barrister was caught off his guard, as he didn't expect it - remember?) It was because Martha didn't believe the company was really behind her client, she believed they would turn against him to defend themselves, and decided to do it first (remember when she said to him: "They don't deserve your loyalty"?) Therefore, that explains why she wasn't briefed on the rules and regulations of the company in the first place.

As for the earlier episode - I don't quite remember that particular scene, so, can't discuss it. Will have to re-watch it.

[–] jamesbloke 12 years ago

IIRC, the company and "Michael Ward" had the same solicitor briefing different barristers. This should have been a big clue that the common defence was going to be abandoned, otherwise why not just have the one barrister defending both the company and the individual?

Martha would have had this base covered so that if, or as is this case, when, the company's defence was revealed to be blaming the security guard she could then change the defence, arguing that the company itself failed to follow its own rules.

[–] Natashashkd 12 years ago

Quote (jamesbloke): "IIRC, the company and "Michael Ward" had the same solicitor briefing different barristers".

Was it specifically mentioned in that episode? I don't remember.

Quote (jamesbloke): "This should have been a big clue that the common defence was going to be abandoned, otherwise why not just have the one barrister defending both the company and the individual?"

It's a common practice in the Crown Court, that co-defendants have different barristers. In another episode, where Clive was prosecuting 3 rich guys in Oxford, each of them had a separate barrister, although they were co-defendants. It's also a common practice to change defense/prosecution strategy way into the trial.

Quote (jamesbloke): "Martha would have had this base covered so that if, or as is this case, when, the company's defence was revealed to be blaming the security guard she could then change the defence, arguing that the company itself failed to follow its own rules".

How do you know that?

[–] jamesbloke 12 years ago

I'm pretty sure Ward told Martha that the company had assured him they would stick together and he didn't need his own solicitor.

They had a bleeping big book of rules and regulations that employees have to follow and the instructing solicitor's team hadn't even read it?! Martha should have asked why straight off.