BBC Silk TV Show Teardown S1E1 Barristers and the Bar | BlackBeltBarrister
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 11. 2020
- The BBC's Silk TV Show was an excellent portrayal of life as a Barrister of England and Wales. Not 100% accurate in every possible sense, but excellent overall with lots of learning points. I actually learned a lot for my Bar exams and the program is still very interesting to watch today as a practising Barrister.
This is published as a "fair use" and educational composition of analysis and critique. The original show, of course, is credited to the BBC.
It should also be said that this video teardown is for EDUCATION only! If you need legal advice, you should seek formal assistance.
This is also by no means a complete or comprehensive list of everything correct and everything incorrect in the Episode and should not be taken as such.
My personal take:
What a fantastic show with the following (and many more! That made the show possible):
Maxine Peake as Martha Costello QC, Barrister
Rupert Penry-Jones as Clive Reader QC, Barrister
Neil Stuke as Billy Lamb, Senior Clerk
John MacMillan as John Bright, Clerk
Theo Barklem-Biggs as Jake Milner, Junior Clerk
Alex Jennings as Alan Cowdrey QC, Head of Chambers
Recurring cast
Tom Hughes as Nick Slade, a pupil who shadows Martha Costello (Series 1)
Natalie Dormer as Niamh Cranitch, a pupil who shadows Clive Reader (Series 1)
Nina Sosanya as Kate Brockman, Barrister (Series 1)
Jamie Di Spirito as Jimmy Johnson, Junior Clerk (Series 1)
Frances Barber as Caroline Warwick QC, Barrister (Series 2-3)
Amy Wren as Bethany Brassington, Junior Clerk (Series 2-3)
Phil Davis as Mickey Joy, Solicitor (Series 2-3)
Indira Varma as George Duggan, CPS Solicitor (Series 2)
Shaun Evans as Daniel Lomas, a pupil who shadows Martha Costello (Series 2)
Miranda Raison as Harriet Hammond, Practice Manager (Series 3)
Jessica Henwick as Amy Lang, a pupil who shadows Martha Costello, Clive Reader & Caroline Warwick (Series 3)
Check out my other law videos too - but remember: Always seek advice!
Quick law tips:
• Common Law
Consumer law:
• Consumer Law
Tree law:
• Tree Law Miniseries
Road traffic law:
• Road Traffic Law
Family law:
• Family Law
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action.
#bbcsilk. Descriptionmay contain affiliate or sponsored links, for which we may receive commissions or payment.
I loved this show and was devastated when it ended it could have gone on for another series at least. I think what truly helped this show was that the writer Peter Moffat was a barrister himself.
Thanks, yes indeed!
Agree! But Maxine Peake is superb in every role she takes on. The rest of the cast were great too and we're totally believable. Great series. I liked Kavenagh too with the matchless John Thaw, but Silk was a better production in my opinion.
Really pleased you won your fight with the BBC. This is clearly an excellent educational video!
Thanks 😁👍
I enjoyed your clear explanations and insiders observations.
Thanks for mentioning this video in your #BotSentinel video! Thoroughly enjoyed it❤
loved the podcast, which showed so much of the process that is just not known by those of us who are not legally informed.
You forgot to analyse a critical scene for accuracy; the scene where Tom Hughes as Nick Slade goes for his wig fitting and runs out with it without paying when the shop clerk is distracted 🤣
Very interesting. I liked this a lot. Well presented too, at a speed that allowed the processing of info. ie not too fast.
Great video, love procedural shows like this.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Really loved your analysis of the accuracy with the real procedures, though would appreciate if you wouldn't spoil the end. Came from your vid on Tiktok, well done for getting the claim removed. Subscribed!
Thanks!
This was brilliant! I loved watching Silk and I aspire to be a barrister one day. One request I'd like to make is if you can do a tear down of the other BBC Barrister series, Defending the Guilty. Although it is a comedy rather than a drama, I found that it makes some very good points about what being a barrister actually involves. Rather than being idealistic and dramatic and emotional in court, one has to be detached and focus on what facts you have. It also addresses what it takes to get Silk and the recent failures of the justice system from the lack of funds.
Great channel to watch when I've finished my A level homework in the evenings.
Cheers
Great idea and thanks for watching - I'm glad you enjoy it! All the best with your studies!
Maybe do Wimpole too for laughs 😃
I watched the first season, but as it wasn’t popular enough in my area our local PBS station canceled it. I have yet to finish the rest of the seasons. I really enjoyed it though. Good to know it’s mostly accurate.
I just discovered the show on Britbox and find it so interesting-as is your breakdown! I was found this video while googling info on “”chambers” and why Billy, as a clerk, has so much power. I obviously have no real understanding of how all of this works (and assume it’s different in the UK, compared to US?)
Any chance you might do a video on this aspect of the show-or even just the topic in general?
Thanks for this one!
I just saw you on Tiktok, so I've subscribed
Brilliant, thanks!
This was a great TV show and I love your take on this episode. I hope the copyright issue will finalised satisfactorily and you'll be able to continue with the series.
Thank you! The BBC dropped (let expire) the claim on this video, so I hope to be making many more soon!
@@BlackBeltBarrister That's very good news, both for you and your viewers.
Thank you!
Bit late I know, as usual great video. Quick question. Double jeopardy being removed and all. If the barrister was given evidence after the trial, would they not be obligated to pass that on or is client confidentiality still in force?
This was an awesome breakdown of a great legal TV show, whether it was foreign or not. I have seen the entire show, got it on DVD, and have great respect for the barristers and solicitors in the UK (minus the wigs in court)
Thanks, glad you liked it! The BBC copyright claim (now dropped) ruined my chances of CZcams promoting it, though!
@@BlackBeltBarrister Then just mention that it is their show on CZcams and break down all the episodes!
Nice series, I was waiting for a barrister to react to shows like this. Most lawyer CZcamsrs react to American shows, so it's nice to see some Commonwealth action as well! It'd be nice if you could look at Kavanagh QC or Law and Order UK? I'm actually a law student aspring to be a barrister in Australia, which is slightly different, but I nevertheless find this stuff very interesting! Also, in your other legal principle videos, it might be nice to have cite authorities of the major principles, just for reference.
Thanks! I am just hoping the BBC drop the copyright claim see my video here explaining why!) czcams.com/video/iiISz9qBkkQ/video.html
I'm very keen to do others, Kavanagh QC is excellent. Judge John Deed - lots to go through!
Came here via your TikTok and now a sub on here;-)
Great, thanks for watching!
Hello!
Where can I watch THE SILK series, if you have a link, drop it in a reply please!
I once quoted in the public domain "I was not there for the prosecution or the defense; I was there simply to tell the truth." Coincidentally it would be many weeks later that Silk used the same or very similar words that aired on one of their show's! Coincidence or Flattering? The publication did warn those giving content that journalists or writers carry out research from them. However silk was and remains my favorite show of all time and I wish they would bring it back.
I have a question about this episode. When it was shown that the defendant’s mugshot was shown for two seconds longer than the others and - if memory serves - the police officer was basically shown to have committed perjury, wouldn’t Martha Costello have raised a point of law and asked the judge to declare a mistrial as a result of abuse of process? In the episode the trial continues to the end and she gives a closing argument. How realistic is that?
Question: one of the episodes of Silk has a jury trial where the judge literally directs the jury to find the person guilty based on what the defendant has said during his testimony. But the jury still went to deliberation, and when they came back the court clerk said something like “have you found the defendant guilty as directed by the court?“
But in this case the jury actually did not find him guilty. Because during the closing argument/speech the defense attorney said something loosely along the lines that the jury still get to decide the law and common sense, etc.
So does this sound true? Is there ever a jury trial where the judge would literally direct the jury to find the defendant guilty?
Inter gritty of justice, yeah you depend on integrity of legislature
Can you break down the movie Denial? It is about a case that was done in England about the the Holocaust.
Sounds like a great idea!
I have a problem, I’m undefended can’t work yet can’t get legal aid, I need help but can’t get it, will you help me
Please email our clerks and we'll put it out: clerks@shensmithbarristers.co.uk
I was under the impression that barristers can't wear their wigs outside of the courtroom?
This was the best law series on TV. Beats that American suits poo hands down. Any other ones out there? I've read the secret barrister which is great.
Loved the show. I'm an attorney in the United States. Were the scenes in which Martha seemed to argue points during her questioning common for barristers or was that dramatic license?
As long as it is put as a question, it’s fine!
I wonder how many fails real life would actually get
You described it as a fault when Martha told the jury that the case must be proven "beyond reasonable doubt", whereas in fact the jury "must be sure". However, is it not possible a barister might say the former to a jury although not correct (i.e. the program was not necessarily inaccurate)?
I was just making the point of the correct test 😊
What happens when the CPS fail to comply with a Judges order? Defendants often end up in serious trouble, what happens to the Prosecutor?
There are various sanctions courts impose, depending on the circumstances of any breach.
@@BlackBeltBarrister Thanks for the reply. I’m looking forward to the content of this channel. 👍
@@CH-en4yj Thanks! More to come! Did you like the BBC SiLK tear down?!
@@BlackBeltBarrister Yes, loved it 👍 There was another programme on Channel 4 “The Trial” which was very good, I believe Max Hill Q.C took part in it.
@@CH-en4yj Yes that's right and John Ryder QC - really great barrister.
Great program, too!
hi i have popped u an email with regards to my case i think this will be of interest to you thank you very much
I have asked about doing a video about mandatory masks, I even emailed you you and you agreed that it would be a good idea and that you'd do one. I haven't seen a video about it and I've been ignored by 5 or 6 other lawyers who don't seem to want to touch the subject. Is there some kind of unspoken rule among lawyers that the subject can't be addressed? Is it too controversial or something? I got wrongly refused access to a gym because I can't wear one one for medical reasons and no one seems to want to help.
Masks are compulsory in the circumstances set out on gov.uk, save for the exceptions listed. Matt Hancock says: "The liability for wearing a face covering lies with the individual. Should an individual without an exemption refuse to wear a face covering, a shop can refuse them entry and can call the police if people refuse to comply. The police have formal enforcement powers and can issue a fine. This is in line with how shops would normally manage their customers. An enforcement is, of course, a last resort, and we fully expect the public to comply with these rules as they have done throughout the pandemic" czcams.com/video/X61iFZ31eZg/video.html
The key point here is that liability for wearing a mask lies with the individual. The difficulty for shops, gyms, etc. is that many of them may have concerns that some people are simply refusing to wear a mask without a valid exemption. It is a fact that people do sometimes break the law and will do so in respect of face coverings. There have also been many protests against wearing masks.
The combined effect is, regrettably, that people with a genuine exemption may well not be given appropriate consideration.
It is a difficult and rather unprecedented situation. I might suggest that you print one of the exemption cards from the Gov.uk website?
@@BlackBeltBarrister thank you for taking the time to reply, I apologise if my frustration came across in the tone of my message, it's not directed at you. It's just incredibly frustrating that discrimination is now acceptable because of that word "unprecedented". Being constantly harrasesed by strangers in busy shops (and the gym) about my medical history is humiliating and a source of great anxiety. Although awareness of the exemptions does seem to be spreading so it is improving now.
I understand your frustration - it is no doubt shared by many. There is also a lot of anxiety around because of how many people are dying from the disease and they may well have strong feelings when someone does not wear a mask (exemptions notwithstanding). Not to mention the amount of people claiming the whole thing to be a hoax and some sort of government conspiracy!
@@BlackBeltBarrister there are some crazy people out there! Covid clearly exists and is a nasty virus there's obviously no doubt about that! But to be honest I can see why the conspiracy theories are running rife. Much of the rule seem contradictory and illogical. Lockdowns are killing people and causing global devastation, particularly in poorer countries where millions of children are expected to die from starvation caused by the global economic meltdown (sourced from the UN). Are you keeping an eye on the judicial review being brought by Simon Dolan and his lawyers Michael Gardner and Francis Hoar? Their case was heard in the court of appeal recently, I believe the decision is still pending, and further proceedings have since been brought against the government by them. Are you also aware of the work by experts like Prof Mike Yeadon who's a respected pharmacologist who worked alongside Sir Patrick Valance and received the same levels of qualification and professional experience at companies like Pfizer, and Prof Carl Heneghan of Oxford University, and the study from King's College that claims that the R rate has dropped below 1 some time ago? Have you seen the great Barrington Declaration that has been signed by tens of thousands of experts, and the World Doctor's Alliance? You may find this interesting: lockdownsceptics.org/what-sage-got-wrong/ and this podcast where Yeadon talks about it: delingpole.podbean.com/e/dr-mike-yeadon/
Are there scams from people claiming to be a barrister.
Too often, unfortunately
Why don't they modernise and get rid of wigs and gowns as it looks a bit silly ?
I loved the series, except for that cringy dance she did. Ewww!