The Jury: Murder Trial; With Love, Meghan; Passage to India: A Yorkshire Vet Special

“Sometimes it seems as if The Jury is designed to be a damning indictment of our legal system – that is certainly how series one was received. Neatly, it arrives just as the government is considering reducing the number of jury trials in order to ease the eye-watering crown court backlog. You may well come away believing justice in the UK has been a millennium-long farce, but the show doesn’t really delve into alternatives – while other methods seem workable in theory, it’s not difficult to foresee other problems in practice. The show does, however, provide plenty of food for thought on this topic. In TV terms, it is a less mitigated success. Like all great reality shows, The Jury uses unusual circumstances to reveal the deeply ingrained prejudices and perspectives that shape our daily lives. Are random citizens fit to dole out life sentences? Probably not. Does the jury system double as a Petri dish for truly illuminating reality TV? Absolutely.”
Rachel Aroesti, The Guardian

“It was fascinating to watch the prosecution and defence attempt to frame the facts to fit their version of events. When the defence replayed a 999 call from the accused in which she sounded indifferent as to whether the victim lived or died, several jurors were ready to find her guilty there and then. “That phone call closed the book for me,” said stay-at-home mum Marissa. But then the accused’s grandmother testified that the dead man was a violent drug user who had frightened her and her granddaughter. “He was a horrible bastard to her,” nodded one juror. With three episodes to go, Channel 4 is presumably keeping the fireworks in reserve. That had better be the case, as part one suffered from an unfortunate eat-your-greens quality. It was earnest and high-minded, but good intentions alone cannot sustain a documentary. The Jury: Murder Trial desperately needed sparks to fly, which they unfortunately never did.
Ed Power, Telegraph

““Can we trust our justice system?” this series asks. Many will argue that juries are a cornerstone of our democracy, but so far this provocative — and undeniably gripping — experiment isn’t much helping that trust. Still, it runs until Friday, so let’s wait to see what transpires, to consider the rest of the evidence — because, well, we wouldn’t want to rush to judgment.”
Carol Midgley, The Times

“With the Government considering curbing jury trials to reduce the backlog of more than 70,000 Crown court cases, the perception provided by this TV experiment is arguably of real-world consequence if it dents confidence in the centuries-old system. But then many of us will have had our faith in the infallibility of juries dented by The Traitors; the contestants’ groupthink repeatedly leads them to a wrong decision over whether a fellow player is a traitor or faithful. As for the knife-wielding Sophie, the jury is still out. For another three episodes anyway.”
Gerard Gilbert, The i

“Life has become an endless referendum, where all decisions have to be public performances. It isn’t sufficient for the jury to decide whether a defendant is guilty — they must do it in a way that Sends A Message to society. And they have ample opportunity because, after each witness leaves the stand, the 12 ordinary people dash back to the comfort of their debating room, with its sofas and its buffet of biscuits. Before the kettle has even boiled, they’re bounding to fresh conclusions.”
Christopher Stevens, Daily Mail

“It’s so boring, so contrived, so effortfully whimsical that, do you know what? In the end, it does become almost fascinating. You find yourself wondering things you would never normally wonder, such as, what would it take for me to embark on making vegan macaroons? How large a part of Meghan wants to run screaming for the hills? How excited could I get about tiny eggs from silkie chickens? What if I were being paid the thick end of $100m to do so, before my original deal ran out?”
Lucy Mangan, The Guardian

“The series is marginally less mad than the first – who can forget Meghan throwing a children’s party but not inviting any children? – but more needy. She prepares personalised drinks for everyone who walks through the door, and sends them home with elaborate gifts – Clare Smyth gets a travel kit for her flight home that includes monogrammed cashmere socks because “I want her to feel loved and nurtured even when she’s left”. When the Shettys mention they host a games night each Friday for 40 friends, you can see Meghan mentally computing how to get on the list. She is keen to let us know how inclusive and generous-spirited she is, and the series ends with her cooking a feast for the crew. Meghan is famously kind to staff – just ask anyone at Buckingham Palace.”
Anita Singh, Telegraph

“With Love, Meghan is baffling. It occupies the sweet spot where irrelevant meets intolerable. It’s like an advert for somewhere we’ll never go and aren’t invited, an ego trip in a sun hat that boils down to this: Meghan is pretty and likes roast chicken and flower arranging. That’s an entry for Miss World, not a concept for ten hours of TV. As the end credits roll on the crew having compulsory fun at a wrap party, the soundtrack is someone singing, “Don’t let it be the last time”. Please, let it be the last time.”
Hilary Rose, The Times

“The obvious question posed, then, by Passage to India: A Yorkshire Vet Special was whether [Peter] Wright’s trademark affability and the programme’s bucolic charm would endure a travel show twist, as the vet and his regular co-star Rohin Aojula visit the latter’s family home in Northern India’s Punjab region. You can take the vet out of Yorkshire – but can you take The Yorkshire Vet out of its natural habitat? The answer is, thankfully, yes.”
Ed Power, The i