Dept. Q: Is there any indication at all that the mysterious ‘S’ is the Lord Advocate himself, Stephen Burns?

Note: This post contains SPOILERS for all nine episodes of Dept. Q. 

You can view Recap Lab's full coverage of Dept. Q via this link.

Lord Advocate Stephen Burns has been a particular favourite of mine ever since he used the word ‘ambuscade’ whilst telling off DCI Carl Morck for interrogating him as he left the courthouse. He rose even further to my estimation when, after Morck asked him what he drove so he might have the same car, he said it was a Ford Eff-off. Posh and squirrelly, he was a good foil to Morck, and their scenes together were duels of wit between two men who did not have anything in common and who did not like each other. But could he be the mysterious ‘S’ who sent Merritt flowers and thought one particular bed in a hotel was lucky? 

I am one of the few people who are not entirely convinced the ‘S’ on the card Akram found amongst Merritt’s office things was her lover whom she knew as Sam Haig. When Morck and Akram tried to find out who this ‘S’ was, after talking to Merritt’s former PA Sabrine Perera, their next stop was her boss, the Lord Advocate himself. Of course, he denied it, and Morck did not really have anything concrete to push him with in this regard. But, as viewers of this beautifully written show, we have the freedom to go further than Carl could in interrogating the possibility of a relationship between the Lord Advocate and Merritt Lingard. So, let’s examine the few things we know of their relationship prior to and following Merritt’s mysterious disappearance.  

Stephen Burns was the one who brought Merritt Lingard into the Crown office.

Merritt was a good prosecutor, everyone agreed on this. She was also driven and very focused on her work. There was no doubt that she earned her position at the Crown Office. But even the best people need others to open the door of opportunity for them. Liam Taylor mentioning that it was Stephen Burns who brought Merritt in meant, at the very least, that they had history. They knew each other even before Merritt started trying cases for the Crown.  

Stephen Burns gave Merritt Lingard, a young, relatively inexperienced prosecutor, a major case, the high profile trial of Graham Finch for the murder of his wife.

Why? Well, my first thought was that Stephen Burns wanted a woman to be the lead prosecutor of a case that hinged on domestic abuse because the jury would have been more likely to relate to her. He appointed the more experienced prosecutor, Liam Taylor, to supervise, and he himself watched the trial nearly every day, it seemed. But also, Merritt had the raw talent and the drive to handle the job. Stephen himself said that after they lost the case, Merritt wanted to try Graham Finch again. She was relentless. This is one of the aspects of the series that I feel does not really support the possibility of an affair between Stephen Burns and Merritt Lingard. Simply, Merritt was assigned to the Graham Finch case because her boss the Lord Advocate thought she would be the best person to handle it, and he wanted to give a talented, young prosecutor a chance to advance her career.  

At the end of one trial day, Stephen Burns mentioned asking Merritt to go for a drink.

This happened pretty early in the story, when Merritt made a rookie mistake during cross examination, and Liam Taylor chewed her out for it. Stephen agreed with Liam, but Merritt dismissed him as simply being jealous that this high profile case was given to her. Stephen and Merritt had a minor discussion which told us that it was Stephen who prevented Merritt from calling Kirsty Atkins to the stand. Then, he mentioned he was going to ask her for a drink, but changed his mind.

Could this have been a simple case of co-workers going for a drink at the end of a long, rough day? Of course. Could it be a sign that these two have had drinks and more in the past? I can’t rule out this possibility.  

Stephen Burns told DCI Carl Morck that Merritt Lingard had secrets.

Everyone had secrets, so this was not a usual thing for a boss to say about his employee. Stephen saying that Merritt had secrets carried with it the implication that he tried to uncover those secrets, and was unsuccessful. If he did, why?

Background check? He was the Lord Advocate, he could have easily checked Merritt’s background information, her education, her criminal record if any. The way Stephen spoke of Merritt’s secrets, he seemed to be referring to something more than what was required to know for employment. Maybe he was just indulging his  curiosity over a beautiful woman? Maybe. 

The thing is, Merritt’s housekeeper made the same observations as Stephen. Merritt was not the type to consider her co-workers her friends and ask them to come around to her house for Sunday brunch. She erected a firm boundary between her life with William and the other aspects of her life. So, Stephen recognising that there were parts of Merritt she preferred to keep segregated did not necessarily mean they ever went beyond a collegial relationship. 

Merritt went straight to Stephen Burns about Kirsty Atkins.

Liam Taylor, who was Merritt’s senior partner on the Graham Finch trial, had no idea Kirsty Atkins existed. Why did Merritt feel comfortable bypassing Liam and going straight to the Lord Advocate, and not at all fearing that there would be any kind of blowback to her career?

Perhaps it was because they had a prior relationship. Or, and this is just as likely, zooming straight ahead without considering office politics was just part of Merritt’s personality. She knew that Liam would have concerns about Kirsty’s background and desperation to get out of jail so she went straight to the boss. It was much later, when Kirsty was attacked, that she started considering that perhaps she had miscalculated. 

When Merritt disappeared, Stephen Burns told investigators that he thought Merritt committed suicide.

DCI Morck asked about this the first time he and the Lord Advocate met. It was suspicious, because outside of there being no indication that Merritt was suicidal, it was also a comment that seemed designed to shut down the investigation. Why?

Well, any investigation into Merritt’s disappearance necessarily would have included the last case she handled, the Graham Finch murder trial. There, Stephen had a particular vulnerability, because he prevented Kirsty Atkins from testifying, a testimony that might have swayed the jury to convict. Merritt’s disappearance closed the book on the Graham Finch trial and buried his involvement, which stemmed from the threat on his daughter’s life. 

What’s the verdict?

There is no compelling evidence that Stephen Burns was the ‘S’ on the flower shop card that Merritt Lingard kept amongst her office things. I am not putting the possibility at zero, but until we get more information (still waiting for that season two announcement), this would just be one of those interesting possibilities that arise from this brilliant, beautifully layered show. 

But, what do you think?

Is Stephen Burns the mysterious 'S' who was Merritt Lingard's lover?

• Yes
• No