Spooks: Code 9

The first episode of the series had (estimated) 810,000 viewers for a multichannel share of 3.8%, with the second episode (broadcast immediately after the first) having 703,000 viewers and 4.0% share.[15] The third episode (broadcast a week later) attracted 447,000 viewers and 2.1% multichannel share, having "lost nearly half of its audience last night, 17 August, compared with last Sunday's launch."[16] The fourth episode, broadcast on 24 August, attracted 288,000 viewers and 1.4% multichannel share,[17] the fifth (31 August) having 353,000 viewers,[18] and the sixth (7 September) 245,000.[10]

For The Times reviewer Andrew Billen said the series "fancies itself as gritty and hip" and that it was "to Spooks what Torchwood is to Doctor Who (ie, not as good)", adding criticism of what he saw as its low budget, its combination of "state torture with a boozy, flirty This Life house-share", and its failure of nerve in not fully linking the attack "with either the Olympics or al-Qaeda".[19] Roland White in The Sunday Times concluded "The script is poor and the acting little better. It's like watching recent graduates takes their first management-training exercise."[20]

A preliminary piece in The Daily Telegraph wondered if the series could avoid accusations of trying to cash in on Spooks despite being "a spin-off with almost nothing in common with its namesake",[5] whilst other reviews in the same paper called the general scenario "daft and unconvincing" and too ludicrous to work as well as similar spin-offs.[21] Though the Telegraph did find some praise for the "surprising twist" in the first episode, it lampooned the nuclear attack for having seemingly "killed everyone over the age of 40" and left MI5 "staffed purely by the young and good-looking", comparing the series' youthful cast with that of Skins.[21]

Internet reception by fans of the original Spooks was generally negative, largely due to the absence of any reference to the events of the main series.[22] A review of the first episode by website Digital Spy found the show "utterly uninspired and stale", "shambolically written", "patronising", and "amateurish".[23] The second episode "is certainly an improvement on the dire opener, although that's hardly a compliment." But "the entire show comes across as one of those school teachers who tries desperately to be trendy and get down wiv da kidz" and "has yet to show ...that it can transcend its current status as a piece of condescending, uninvolving tripe."[24] However, by the sixth episode Digital Spy had detected a "stark improvement in the latter half of the first season", saying the finale "summed up the uneven nature of the season, but ultimately delivered a reasonably absorbing glimpse of a claustrophobic and panic-strewn future" that "leaves us wanting more...." But "was the budget being saved up for the grand finale? If so, that's a dodgy move indeed as ratings have shown that not many viewers have stuck around."[25]

The Guardian described it as "a spin-off too far", with "clunky, lazy writing", "ropey indeed.... an utterly cynical venture and a damning indictment of the lack of imagination at work in commissioning new drama,"[26] going on to say that "given its patronising awfulness, SC9 actually damages the Spooks brand." Discussing The Guardian's opinion a year later, Adrian Hon (who was responsible for the Liberty News website)[14] said "the branding plan had backfired" and if it had been launched with "a different name (i.e. not Spooks), everyone would have given the show more of a chance." In his opinion "they got it backwards": the first two episodes being "equally painful to watch", later episodes improved and episode six "really quite entertaining. In fact, the first minutes of the finale are captivating.... That's how SC9 should've started."[27]