This show was pure entertainment from the start. Good story with a twist, good acting, a few surprises and well worth watching.

Similar to Scandinavian crime thrillers, the British ones are also the ones I try to see as soon/much as possible. Some are great, others good, but never disappointing or causing blah! feelings. Injustice has an unusual number of episodes - 5 - and is a fair mind- twister, where events and destinies intertwine and attitudes and opinions go back into decades before. True, not all characters and scenes are of equal importance and credibility (e.g. DI Mark Wenborn), and some crucial points were revealed too far, but James Purefoy's performance in particular and skilfully captured spirit provide the series with suitable and thrilling background. Unless you are used to the model "one case per episode", you can definitely obtain good memories from the one in question.Referring to the final episode, one could have suspected the following season, but "so far - not good".

To best convince you that this is a great series, short as it is, I'll be spoiling most of the plot. That's how convinced I am that a spoiler can also be a seller. William Travers, played by James Purefoy is an extremely successful barrister; we see him in action right from the start and so have little difficulty with the sometimes references to his reputation as a formidable lawyer. What we also learn midway the short five sequels episodes, is that he's prepared to risk his license by walking away from a case if he loses trust in his client; defending innocent people is his sole mission and he does not accept cases if he has doubts about a prospect client's innocence.Unlike TV series which themes deal with justice, the law and police investigations, this series is more like five a part movie about a uncommon defence lawyer. He spares no effort turning every stone and considering any detail that might help prove all his clients' innocence; an hour TV episode or a two hour regular movie would usually feature an "eureka" moment but not "INJUSTICE". No 'Cracker Jack' storyline here to meet a production deadline.We rout for Travers with each small piece of information he and his team manage to gather for their case. The case in play here is a murder trial where the accused is an old friend; Travers had previously sworn never to work murder cases after the mental breakdown he suffered following what should have been his last successful murder case. We are confronted by bits and pieces relating to that former case; we are made to understand that a young boy was killed by the blast of a bomb and that the man responsible, an extremist animal rights activist had fooled Travers in believing in his innocence. Episode after episode show glimpses of Travers, flashes of memory, assassinating his former client out of a sense of justice, but this culmination of his mental breakdown only heightens our doubt about his current case. We slowly develop doubts and questions for which we cannot form simple answers. Might he be falling into another similar trap? Developments point to his current client's innocence while the case also becomes more and more difficult for his client; the more challenging it gets, the more we lean on the side of his innocence. Travers mental state has not been remedied despite what all around him perceive. The more predictable it should become, the less it in fact does.To make matters more interesting to the audience, the most despicable detective inspector on the force, DS Mark Wenborn (played superbly by Charlie Creed-Miles), is making slow but clearly cumulative progress that he hopes will result in charging Travers with the murder of his former client, a prospect which unleashes Wenborn into all sorts of abuses of authority toward his goal. It's personal for Wenborn. He might have only stumbled on small clues at first, but his resentment of Travers fuels his vile ambitions.Five episodes allow us to get to know the main characters in their personal lives, not just as officers of the law or of the court; we follow them with their families and colleagues and so we can relate to them as ordinary persons. Sympathy, empathy, support builds for barrister Travers, while we loathe Wenborn. We get emotionally interested in the characters. Something European productions are far better at incorporating in their scripts; the resulting production is richer and has thus more depth. I'm abstaining for revealing more; there are indeed more, even intertwined sub-plots that had me addicted to watch "INJUSTICE". Few have taken the time to write reviews and or to vote, but the weighted average rating of 8.2 supports my conclusion that this is well worth watching and I hesitate not in recommending it.

When ITV showed this crime drama over five consecutive nights, my interested was piqued by the presence of James Purefoy, an actor I've been a fan of since I saw him in SOLOMON KANE. I stuck with it for Purefoy alone - he delivers an excellent turn - and am willing to forgive the drama its faults on the basis that it picked a fine actor for its central part.Otherwise, it's a pretty predictable type of production, throwing together the ingredients so beloved of British TV crime these days: murders, shady blackmailing, adultery, CCTV footage, thugs and horrible crimes in pretty rural locales. The plot is fairly interesting, but the main problem is that there isn't enough story to justify the five hour running time.The upshot of this is that the production is long winded in the extreme, drip-feeding the viewer flashbacks and clues at an incredibly slow pace before tying everything up in the final episode. Still, Purefoy's angst-ridden turn kept me watching, so it's not all bad.