Spoiler alert: this blog is for people watching series four of Line of Duty (it also contains spoilers from earlier series). Don’t read on unless you have watched episode one.
I don’t know about you, but I would certainly think twice before agreeing to take a starring role in Line of Duty. After Gina McKee in series one, Jessica Raines in series two and Daniel Mays last year, this time around it was Thandie Newton’s turn to meet an uncomfortable end early on, thanks to a clever final scene that saw a straightforward work confrontation between Newton’s DCI Roz Huntley and seemingly mild-mannered forensic coordinator Tim Ifield (Jason Watkins) swiftly spiral out of control. Or did she? As ever with the trickiest show on television nothing was quite cut and dry and thus, just as Ifield prepared to perform his best Laura Palmer tribute act and wrap Huntley’s body in plastic, she appeared to open her eyes. It was a smart end to a well-paced opening episode and one that suggested that even though most of this show’s long-running threads were neatly tied up at the end of the last series, there’s still plenty of gas in Jed Mercurio’s storytelling tank.
The bad guys
The main story this time revolves around the culmination of a high-profile investigation into a multiple murderer. Two women have been killed and the story began with the third being abducted. The officer heading the case – DCI Roz Huntley, a seemingly committed officer with an unblemished record and a solid reputation – soon makes an arrest and it’s celebrations all round. Not so fast. Because while Huntley thinks she’s got her man, the case’s forensic coordinator Ifield is far less convinced – and that’s where things start to get interesting.
One of the great things about this series is the way in which characters can be both terribly wrong and absolutely right. Thus when we first met Ifield, he seemed nothing more than an over-conscientious jobsworth who pursued Newton’s Huntley not out of any form of malice, but because something just didn’t sit right with him. Fans of Taboo may have been mildly suspicious simply because he’s played by Watkins, last seen applying instruments of torture to naked flesh with great and creepy effect.
If so, their fears were fully justified in the show’s closing minutes when Ifield was revealed to be far more than a blinkered, possibly slightly mad obsessive with a dislike of Huntley. Given the bagged evidence and balaclava in his bag, the question now becomes: did he have all that stuff because he was investigating it on his own having checked it out earlier, or is it even worse than that – is he the actual killer?
And that’s the particularly fiendish thing about this opening episode. Huntley could be what she appeared: a conscientious cop who was desperate to do well having returned to work after a long absence raising kids and who, under pressure, ignored Ifield’s concerns and arrested the wrong guy. Or she could be a corrupt cop who knowingly falsified evidence, possibly with the full awareness of her supervisor, the ever-unctuous assistant chief constable Paul Hilton. Or, she could have the right man, even though the evidence surrounding the vulnerable Michael Farmer seems shaky at best.
Similarly, Ifield could be both a man who is now covering up a murder, and right that Hunter was wrong about Farmer. Or he could be something far more dangerous. The one thing we do know is that he never intended to hurt or possibly kill Huntley, but that once he had, he immediately started putting his forensic skills to excellent use.
The good guys
So, what of our heroes? The two junior members of AC-12 were doing their best impression of two cats squabbling in a bag, spending most of the episode sniping at each other and trying to score cheap points. Most of the blame here lies with young Mr Arnott, who displayed classic (and very believable) signs of insecurity over Kate now being on the same level as him, and promptly tried to put in for another promotion. It takes some chutzpah to suggest you deserve a promotion after nearly derailing a whole department; no wonder Kate’s jibes landed rather more successfully than Steve’s. Thank goodness, then, for superintendent Ted Hastings, who remains a shining beacon of moral probity in a dirty world, and also a man supremely unimpressed by underling strife. Pull it together gang, we can’t have father Ted upset can we?
Case notes
• There’s a really interesting subplot bubbling under about attitudes towards women at work. Arnott is furious about Fleming’s promotion even though he probably tells himself otherwise; Ifield’s response to Huntley seemed driven by far more than annoyance at poor policing – there was a real anger to their meetings. Hilton stressed Huntley’s time out looking after her family, and the fact he still knew she was “better than her record”. Huntley sharply slapped Fleming down for the dismissive way she talked about the dead women, making an impassioned case for their rights.
• Was it just me who thought Steve messed up the interview with Farmer’s original accuser? She seemed only one flash of the Arnott eyebrows away from admitting that her former schoolfriend hadn’t attacked her, but our man didn’t press.
• I felt a genuine thrill when Kate and Steve had their first clandestine tunnel meeting.
• I’m still not sure about Kate’s undercover abilities – and nor it seems was Roz Huntley, who headed her off at every turn.
• The other person I’m not sure of: ACC Hilton – we know he’s career-obsessed and never met a camera he didn’t love, but did he order Huntley to cut corners?
Weasel of the week
A big hand here for Tim Ifield, obsessive to the point of blinkered madness, possibly a murderer and definitely not a man you can trust even if he might well be right that Farmer has been falsely accused.
Quote of the week
“Never mind the finer points – a young lad might go to prison for a crime he didn’t commit and if police wrongdoing is part of it, I want to know.” Welcome back Ted Hastings, forever and always, the righteous king of my heart.
So what did you think? Has Ifield killed Huntley? Is he right about the cover-up or is this a case of personal dislike making you see something a certain way? Is it possible that Huntley and Ifield are both right, and also both wrong? As always all speculation – and no spoilers – welcome below…
