A barrister is defending someone from a charge of sexually abusing a young boy, and is convinced of his client's innocence. When the guilty verdict is handed down, he refuses to let it go, and sets about gathering evidence that could be used in an appeal.

This was one of those audiobooks that they spoil by reading a plot synposis before the book gets going (and there was a fair amount more detail than is in my initial paragraph). I tried not to listen but couldn't help it, and so had some expectation, given descriptions of "an alternative justice system" of which way the story was going to go. In the event, it wasn't quite as I expected: what was uncovered was more cock-up than conspiracy.

The writer is described as a British John Grisham, but I didn't really pick up much in the way of similarities, except for the legal setting. In fact I thought there was a bit more depth to the characters than you'd expect in Grisham, but the setting felt less glamorous.

The plot felt a bit implausible, which in a way I suppose is a vote of confidence: the setting felt real enough to make the things that the characters did seem hard to swallow, whereas in JG the whole thing would feel a bit fictional, and so the things that people do don't seem so out of place.

It's two weeks since I finished the book and I'm struggling to remember much about it now, so I think that shows it didn't make that great an impression. I think I'd read another book by this author if I came across it, but wouldn't rush to find one.

Completed : 13-Feb-2012 (audiobook)