Peter is an experienced crime, protest and youth expert with both higher rights of audience and the duty solicitor accreditation. He also has experience of litigation and advocacy in terrorism cases.
He has a reputation for pursuing novel legal defences and challenging the lawfulness of decisions that underly prosecution (including the decision to prosecute itself).
Peter has conducted trials for a range of protest offences in the summary jurisdiction, including many involving complex and unusual legal points.
Peter is also registered as a youth specialist, having taken additional training to be placed on the register managed by the Youth Practitioners Association.
Prominent Cases
R v S - Peter conducted a trial involving novel legal arguments on the lawfulness of travel regulation, the need for a mental element to commit offences, defending a vulnerable asylum seeker accused of fare evasion. This novel legal argument results do a full day of legal argument before a district judge as well as a full day trial and multiple case management hearings to deal with disclosure issues.
R V P - Peter defended a vulnerable disabled man who was convicted of a single sexual offence, as a child themself and on basis of a confession obtained in the 1970's, before the safeguards of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act where in place. 50 years after the conviction and despite decades of work with children without incident they were barred from work with children. They continued their employment and were charged with an offence of continuing to work despite being on the barred list. Peter challenged the lawfulness of the original baring as a defence. After significant disclosure request and written legal argument the Crown were forced to discontinue the prosecution.
R V S - Peter secured an acquittal of a protestor charged with obstruction of the public highway, despite allegations of an ambulance being obstructed.
R v N - PBA litigated and conducted the trial of a protestors accused aggravated trespass by disrupting grey hound racing. After the service of legal argument the Crown offered no evidence on the day of trial.
R V B - Peter secured a 1 year community order for a youth convicted of a second knife offence, despite the mandatory minimum.
R v W - Peter conducted an aggravated trespass trial. Co-Defending with a partner at another firm he led the cross examination of the Crowns witness relating to trespass and successful persuaded the judge there was insufficient evidence to say the protesters were in fact trespassing, leading to an acquittal.
;
R V P - Peter defended a vulnerable disabled man who was convicted of a single sexual offence, as a child themself and on basis of a confession obtained in the 1970's, before the safeguards of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act where in place. 50 years after the conviction and despite decades of work with children without incident they were barred from work with children. They continued their employment and were charged with an offence of continuing to work despite being on the barred list. Peter challenged the lawfulness of the original baring as a defence. After significant disclosure request and written legal argument the Crown were forced to discontinue the prosecution.
R V S - Peter secured an acquittal of a protestor charged with obstruction of the public highway, despite allegations of an ambulance being obstructed.
R v N - PBA litigated and conducted the trial of a protestors accused aggravated trespass by disrupting grey hound racing. After the service of legal argument the Crown offered no evidence on the day of trial.
R V B - Peter secured a 1 year community order for a youth convicted of a second knife offence, despite the mandatory minimum.
R v W - Peter conducted an aggravated trespass trial. Co-Defending with a partner at another firm he led the cross examination of the Crowns witness relating to trespass and successful persuaded the judge there was insufficient evidence to say the protesters were in fact trespassing, leading to an acquittal.