Although Frances Fyfield has written a surprisingly long list of crime novels during her career, I can only remember reading one of them (I think it was 'Let's Dance,' published under the pseudonym Frances Hegarty) before this one - and I seem to recall that I didn't enjoy it very much. So I was not sure what to expect when I picked up this, her latest thriller, despite it having recently won the 2008 Gold Dagger from the Crime Writers Association.
Happily, I discovered an enjoyable and engrossing tale, although it took a while to get into. Ms Fyfield has a very distinct, rather disjointed prose style which can be a little off-putting; I believe it to have been the reason I didn't enjoy the previous book of hers I read. However, once I became accustomed to the rhythm, the plot took hold and I read the whole thing straight through in a few hours. Briefly, it's the story of a ruthless female defence lawyer who has just won a difficult case by thoroughly humiliating the vulnerable chief witness for the prosecution. The witness kills herself after her second day under cross-examination, and shortly afterwards the barrister herself commits suicide, leaving behind some cryptic clues as to her reasons. Simultaneously, the unstable and dangerous man she successfully defended in her final case is looking for the incriminating notes and recordings she made of their consultations, her unscrupulous brother is out to get his hands of her estate and the sister of the dead witness cannot rest until she sees justice done... Needless to say, all these disparate threads become enmeshed as the story builds to a nerve-shredding final confrontation.
There was only one element which I felt let the book down. Throughout the novel, chapters are interspersed with extracts from the transcript of that final trial which takes place just before the book begins, detailing the female lawyer's damning cross-examination of the prosecution witness and her sister, and I found these sequences unconvincing. I fully realise that Frances Fyfield is a qualified barrister and therefore has a vast wealth of legal knowledge, while my only firsthand experience of court is a brief spell of jury service, but I simply cannot believe that anyone would be allowed to behave the way the defence lawyer does in these extracts. She hurls a stream of vicious personal insults at the witnesses, belittling their appearance, intelligence and career choices, and she completely dominates the judge to the point where she decides when he should call a recess! Yet there are few objections from the opposing counsel. I did watch a hostile cross-examination while on jury duty, but it was nothing like this. If lawyers really are allowed to insult and bully witnesses in such a way, then some new bar regulations are clearly needed.
Despite this quibble, I'd still say the book was a deserving winner at the CWA awards, and would definitely recommend it to any fan of intelligent, slow-burning psychological thrillers.
Amazon Home
