“'I never applied for that room.”
Why it's great
A flat denial knocks down his theory that she schemed for the bigger room.
Register
Neutral
Use it yourself
I never applied for the transfer. Someone else sent my name.
00:00 / 03:14
00:00 / 03:14
Tessa Loses Faith in the Law, Explained
National Theatre Live: Prima Facie · 2022
Chapter 21 of 22 · 3'14"
The QC is not asking about office space. A larger room, then higher income, is his way of calling her account a calculated move. She said Julian's version to colleagues was news to her. Underneath sits one line: "But most of all, I have lost my faith in this, the law," after dignity, self, and peace of mind are gone.
Key moments
Start here, then watch the full scene- 2:38–3:12
❝ Monologue · 9 lines She Loses Faith in the Law
35s
Tessa Loses Faith in the Law, explained
What happens
In court she says she never applied for the large room. A QC treats the move as prestige, then as a way to raise her income. She says what Julian told colleagues is news to her. She says she moved chambers to get away and work without fear, and that her police statement came the same night. Told to refrain from elaboration, she ends on her faith in the law.
What's really going on
The cross-examination keeps renaming one decision. A bigger room is cast as appetite for prestige, as payback against Julian, and as a plan to increase income. "I never applied for that room" undercuts the idea that she chased the space. "This is news to me" meets a separate shock: Julian has already told colleagues his version, while she was talking to Mia about a possible relationship. The narration marks an about turn, and the next question leaves that revelation to ask if the new room was meant to increase her income. She says she moved to get away and work without fear, and that the police statement was made the same night. The reply shuts the supplement down: "please refrain from elaboration," because it is not relevant to the question. Allowed to continue, she counts dignity, sense of self, career path, friends, peace of mind, and safety. Most of all she has lost faith in the law, "the system I dedicated my life to."
Key lines & what they mean
- “'I never applied for that room.”
- She rejects the idea that she sought the larger room. It answers his assumption that she would want more prestigious chambers at any cost.
- “'Day one law school. Only trust your legal instincts.'”
- She does not speak this. It is what she wants to tell him: do not trust a personal hunch about her, only the instinct trained in law school.
- “'If you are implying that I planned the entire night 'to stage something like this, I have no words.”
- She is answering the suggestion that she planned the night in order to stage the allegation. The line breaks off on having no words.
- “'I have lost my sense of self.”
- One loss on the list she insists on giving the jury: her sense of self, named beside dignity.
- “'But most of all, I have lost my faith in this, the law,”
- She marks this as the greatest loss, after dignity, self, career, friends, peace of mind, and safety. The thing she has lost faith in is the law.
- “'It was the system I dedicated my life to.'”
- She names the law as the system she dedicated her life to, the same system she believed would protect her.
Theme
- Justice — A larger room is handled as motive. She answers by naming the law she once believed would protect her.
- Faith — After dignity, self, career, friends, peace of mind, and safety, she says her faith in the law is what she has lost.
What this chapter teaches
Teaching points
Review right after watchingMy level0/8
A1–C2 is the CEFR scale. Cards above the level you pick fade, and playback will not auto-pause on them.
Language points
Click a card to jump to its moment in the videoGolden lines
A great line in its own right — why and how to use it“'Day one law school. Only trust your legal instincts.'”
Why it's great
It makes legal training a first-day rule that cuts human instinct out of the job.
Register
Informal
Use it yourself
Day one on the ward: only trust the chart, not your panic.
“'If you are implying that I planned the entire night 'to stage something like this, I have no words.”
Why it's great
She repeats his accusation in full, then stops as if the charge itself cannot be answered.
Register
Formal
Use it yourself
If you are implying that I hid the emails on purpose, I have no words.
“'I have lost my sense of self.”
Why it's great
It names a loss that is not a job or an object, but the feeling of being a person.
Register
literary
Use it yourself
After that year indoors, I have lost my sense of ordinary days.
“'But most of all, I have lost my faith in this, the law,”
Why it's great
The list saves the largest loss for last, and the pause makes the law itself the final item.
Register
literary
Use it yourself
But most of all, I have lost my faith in the review process.
“'It was the system I dedicated my life to.'”
Why it's great
The past tense gives her working life to the system and marks that gift as already over.
Register
Formal
Use it yourself
It was the newsroom I dedicated my life to, and it closed on a Friday.
Monologue
One character carrying the scene — shadow the whole passage❝ What she has lost
'Mr Julian Brookes' QC here will at some stage tell you the jury 'what Mr Brookes might have lost, but I will tell you what I have lost. 'I have lost my dignity. I... 'I have lost my sense of self. 'I have lost my career path, friends, peace of mind, safety, 'sense of joy in my sexuality. 'But most of all, I have lost my faith in this, the law, 'the system I believed would protect me. 'It was the system I dedicated my life to.'
The repeated I have lost turns the cross-examination into a ledger, and the last item is the system itself.
Up next · 22litmus testThe scene: Witness Calls Out the Rape LawPeople also search
Questions, then the linesWhy does the QC keep returning to the new room?
He assumes she wanted the more prestigious chambers at any cost. He asks if she is enjoying that room, and he implies the allegation is payback for what Julian told colleagues. After she says that account is news to her, he asks if the new room was a move to increase her income, then implies she discredited Julian to be offered the tenancy.
What has Julian been telling people, in this cross-examination?
The QC implies she made up a rape story as payback because Julian told friends and colleagues that she had sex with him on his sofa at chambers. She says that is news to her. She had no idea he had spoken about her like that, and she had been talking to Mia about a possible relationship.
What happens at the about turn?
The words are narration, not something the QC says aloud. She has just said she had no idea Julian had spoken about her that way. The next question leaves that subject and asks whether the new room was a strategic move to increase her income. It is the questioning changing road, not a body turning in the room.
Why does he tell her to refrain from elaboration?
She says she moved chambers to get away from Julian and to work without fear, and that she made her police statement the night of the assault, hours after it happened. He replies that this is not relevant to his question and tells her to refrain from elaboration.
Why does she say she has lost her faith in the law?
She lists dignity, sense of self, career path, friends, peace of mind, safety, and joy in her sexuality. Most of all, she has lost her faith in the law, the system she believed would protect her and the system she dedicated her life to.