Prima Facie Today

This is the play’s central genius: She can map out exactly how her own barrister (if she hires one) would dismantle her testimony. She can hear the cross-examination before it happens: “You didn’t say no loudly enough? You continued to lie there? You texted him ‘goodnight’ the next day to be polite?” Part III: The Trial of the Self The final act follows Tansy’s decision to report the crime and take the stand. In a cruel irony, she has to hire a junior barrister to represent her while she watches from the gallery. She watches a woman—her surrogate—try to do what Tansy used to do: fight the machine.

★★★★★ (But only if you have the emotional armour for it) Prima Facie

If you’ve heard the roar surrounding Suzie Miller’s one-woman tour-de-force, Prima Facie , you likely know two things: it starred Jodie Comer in a breathtaking West End and Broadway run, and it deals with sexual assault within the legal system. But to reduce this play to a “courtroom drama” or a “MeToo story” is to miss its surgical precision. Prima Facie is not just a story about a crime; it is a devastating autopsy of a legal philosophy. This is the play’s central genius: She can

Tansy loses the case. The jury returns a not-guilty verdict. You texted him ‘goodnight’ the next day to be polite

Tansy loses her case. But Suzie Miller wins the argument.

She decides to leave criminal law. Not to give up, but to fight differently. She will become a legal scholar, a reformer, a voice demanding that the law catch up to human experience. The final line is a call to arms: “I will not be silent. We will not be silent.” Prima Facie is not anti-law. It is pro-justice. Miller, a former human rights and criminal defence lawyer, isn’t arguing that we should abandon “innocent until proven guilty.” She is arguing that the current application of that principle, particularly in sexual assault cases, conflates evidentiary failure with credibility failure .

Tansy defends men accused of sexual assault. She is proud of this. She argues that she isn’t defending the act, but the principle. She cross-examines complainants with surgical precision, exploiting gaps in memory, intoxication, or the infamous “lack of resistance.” She believes she is a guardian of justice, ensuring the state doesn’t convict an innocent man on flimsy evidence.