Reasonable Doubt

Reasonable Doubt attempts to provide a thrilling insight into the nature of the Australian justice system but patchy performances and a thin, contrived storyline hamper the play from its outset.

Mitchell and Anna, two former jurors who enjoyed a romantic liaison while serving on a murder case, meet up two years later in a Sydney hotel room. Through a series of taught, tension-laced conversations and arguments, they explore their differing views over the verdict and try to rekindle their relationship as devastating secrets are revealed.

The arid soullessness of the plush hotel room is set to perfection; tawny silk sheets cover an impractical round bed adorned with claret red cushions, while Anna’s dumbstruck face instantly conveys the room’s impressive harbour view. What’s more, the script – penned by former civil rights lawyer, Suzie Miller – raises some interesting questions: how far will jurors let their personal circumstances affect their own verdict? And how long does it take for the guilt of deception to eat through into day-to-day life?

Sadly, these triumphs are eclipsed by the lack of chemistry between the two leads and the absence of focused direction from Fringe stalwart Guy Masterson. Though Emma Jackson excels as Anna, effortlessly conveying her sense of meaninglessness in a world she can’t control, this animation is not reciprocated by Peter Phelps as Mitchell, who delivers his lines in stock, wooden format and simply doesn’t materialise as the menacing, sexy figure that Anna perceives him to be. It’s this unevenness that disappoints, weighing down what might otherwise be a stimulating, captivating insight into the consequences of perjury.