While it deftly re-examines the true crime in detail, Sidney Fox’s Crime is best when exploring the role of privilege within the justice system. Who can lie and is allowed to get away with it could not be more timely.
Without venturing too far into spoiler territory of a case that is 92 years old, much of the decision to convict Fox rested on the controversial “evidence” supplied by Sir Bernard Spilsbury, the Home Office pathologist. As someone who had an avowed hatred of homosexuals, and knowing that Fox was a gay man, Silsbury’s motive for introducing a key but unverifiable piece of evidence into his report a month late casts doubt on the soundness of the conviction. The contemporary relevance of a man in power misusing his position to mislead and his opposite number not allowed to call him a liar will not be lost on anyone who follows post-Pandemic British politics.
With a running time of one hour ten minutes, it feels a tad shy of a full play but heftier than a Fringe piece. At Above The Stag, it’s a perfect running time. With crisp dialogue, a strong cast and simple but effective staging (kudos to David Shields and Joseph Ed Thomas for set and lighting design respectively), Sidney Fox’s Crime is an intriguing show that true crime fans will certainly enjoy. Not content merely to dramatise events, the play builds to a satisfying conclusion that does not shy away from its central premise: what really was Sidney Fox’s crime?