Fans of the "Willy Wonka" stories will be fascinated to hear a reference to "Gobstoppers", obviously a real type of British treat. The kids involved in the prank obviously went out of their way to harass complete strangers, and in the case of cab driver Attenborough, nobody saw him leave after the young victim managed to get away from him. The shadow of a man wearing a hat is seen ominously at the listings of the day's cases, giving a hint to the possibility that he was the perpetrator. Everything hinges on the brilliance of the inexperienced barrister and, of course, a lot of chance. Could this really be how an accused man would behave and could his fate rest in the lap of the gods, rather than the work of the police? I was not convinced; the police fail to conduct any real investigation whatsoever (aside from doing everything to incriminate their only suspect); this was left to the barrister. Are barristers supposed to be detectives? Would the police be able to bring a case, based on what appear to be circumstantial and very flimsy evidence? The eyewitnesses' stories were easily discounted and how likely would it be that the real guilty party might actually be one of the witnesses? (If you'll forgive a reference to another film, "Yes, my marrow" [Maurice Denham] - if you watch the film and know the actor, you'll know what I'm on about). I couldn't help feeling that some of the sub-plots were unnecessary (the judge's family troubles make no difference to the story and the barrister's illness seemed a somewhat elaborate way of introducing the inexperienced son.) Is this, then, the story of an innocent man, the failure of British justice (which it could easily have been), or the skill of a promising, but inexperienced barrister? (Or all three?) An ordinary, peaceful man (Tom Banning - Attenborough) leaves home one morning, on his way to work at a local taxi rank. He bids farewell to his wife and, en-route, encounters some local children, who are playing and making a slight nuisance of themselves. The war is only a few years distant and there are still bombed-out houses to be seen, which make great playgrounds for the children. His gentle and honest nature, see him "taken in" by the antics of a young girl, who claims to have lost her doll (it's April Fools Day). For some reason, despite it making him late, he decides to help the girl find her toy. However, it turns out that she was making it all up and, as soon as he finds out, he leaves and makes his way to work. Shortly afterwards, the girl is murdered and the suspicion turns on the taxi driver. The remainder of the film centres upon his defence and the trial.

Attenborough is good in his part as the innocent man facing a guilty verdict under a tonne of prosecution circumstantial evidence. By the numbers murder mystery drama starring Richard Attenborough as a London cab driver who is on trial on a murder charge accused of murdering a young girl.

Rate And Review

When the young girl is found dead Attenborough turns out to be the wrong man in the wrong place but all the evidence, circumstantial it might be points to him being the murderer. Of course we know it's not him as we see a man in a bowler hat shown in silhouette who approached he girl after Attenborough left the girl and this shadowy man pops up later on. It really wants you to shout out 'its that man again' every time you see him

I have always liked Richard Attenborough. He was a true "great" and this film shows how versatile he was as an actor. I cannot rate it as a 5 star film, merely because some of the story is a little too "circumstantial" for me. I will try to explain. Kinematograph Weekly said: "Human, thoughtful and down-to-earth crime melodrama, pivoting on the Old Bailey.... Finely acted, shrewdly directed and flawlessly staged, it should intrigue and grip all classes." [6] The judge has troubles of his own - his wife is in hospital for an operation that she doesn't survive. Despite receiving this awful news he is kind and fatherly towards a very young witness. (Though he abandons his poor daughter, sobbing off-stage.)

During a recess Peter Tanner sees Clifford outside the courthouse, giving a sweet to a young girl. He identifies the sweet as the same as found on Irene. Tanner recalls Clifford for cross-examination, confronting him with the sweets, and instructing a street musician to play "Oranges and Lemons". Clifford breaks down, and Manning is cleared. The trial begins at London's Old Bailey, where Tanner is opposed by his father, prosecuting counsel Geoffrey Tanner. It soon becomes evident that things are going badly for Manning. Jurors are seen expressing their belief in Manning’s guilt even before the trial is over. Irene's mother offers hearsay evidence that Manning had given the victim sweets, and accusing Manning of murder. Following the testimony of prosecution witness Horace Clifford, all the evidence seems to point to Manning's guilt.