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.
