In the context of the lockdown set down in The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, 3PB criminal barrister Graham Gilbert reviews the concept of “reasonable excuses” and when it is acceptable to leave your house.
Graham Gilbert
Year of Call: 2015
Email Address: [email protected]
CJSM: [email protected]
Telephone: 01962 868 884
Clerk Details
- Clerk Name: Stuart Pringle
- Clerk Telephone: 01962 868 884
- Clerk Email: [email protected]
Crime
Graham defends and prosecutes across Southern England & Wales, including London. His cases have covered a wide range of criminal offences, including child cruelty, possession of indecent images, cannabis cultivation, burglary and arson. He has also appeared in numerous proceedings concerning the breach of court orders, as well as prosecuting for several regulatory bodies, including the RSPCA, DVLA and TfL. Graham also handles driving offences and POCA cases.
Recent Defence Work Includes:
R v James & Others
Secured the acquittal of a client initially charged with money laundering in 2017.
R v S
Appeared before the Court of Appeal representing three parties charged with offences under section 1 Knives Act 1997 (unlawful marketing of the items).
R v S
Representing defendant website business in Court of Appeal for an application under S.35/36 of Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
R v W
Burglary matter at Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v Wi
Burglary matter dropped by the Crown after the service of DCS.
R v T
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
D v R
Appeal against conviction for one offence of harassment. Crown’s case dismissed at half-time.
R v M
Possession of a bladed article matter.
R v R
PWITS matter heard at Portsmouth Crown Court.
R v D
Successful application to dismiss an offensive weapon allegation.
R v Wt
Theft and s.47 offence in Newport (IOW).
R v C
Threats to kill.
R v M
Successfully resisted Crown’s application to adduce the complainant’s evidence as hearsay, resulting in the discontinuance of the s.47 charge.
R v S
Indecent images heard at Aylesbury Crown Court.
R v M
Money laundering offences.
R v J
Perverting the course of justice
R v T
Stalking.
R v L
Breach of Sexual Harm Prevention Order. Successful application to vacate a plea entered in the magistrates’ court.
R v T
Illegally subletting a council property. Client sentenced to a conditional discharge.
R v V
Breach of restraining order and disclosing private sexual images.
R v N
Sexual assault of a child.
Recent Prosecution Work Includes:
R v P
Possession of a disguised firearm.
R v E
Robbery.
R v A
Blade and burglary matter.
R v A
Controlling and coercive behaviour.
R v F
PWITS trial at Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v H
Sexual assault.
R v S
Sexually aggravated assault.
R v M
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
R v W
Harassment.
R v D
Stalking.
Motoring offences
Graham frequently handles motoring law offences, from first appearances through to trial and, if necessary, sentencing. His practice covers the full range of motoring matters, from dangerous driving through to documentary and lower level offences. He is adept at handling cases involving the intricacies of this area of law, and is a trusted advocate by lay and professional clients.
Examples of Graham’s recent cases involving such points of law include:
P v A
Failure to stop. Graham secured the acquittal of the client on the basis of case-law which held that, if the court was satisfied the defendant had not been aware of the alleged accident, they could not be guilty of failing to stop.
R v C
Dangerous driving offence sent to the Crown Court. However, the matter had to be withdrawn by the prosecution as notice had not been sent to the defendant within the time-limit required by statute, a point noted by Graham.
R v CB
inconsiderate driving. Successfully argued that the Crown had not established a case to answer resulting in that charge being dismissed at the close of the Crown's case.
Other examples of Graham’s work include:
P v Z
Careless driving. Despite the defendant driving an HGV at the time of the incident, Graham secured a favourable result that meant the driver kept his licence.
P v McL
Speeding and failure to nominate. After discussions with the Prosecution, the failure to nominate charge was dropped and the client admitted the speeding offence.
P v O
Using a mobile phone whilst driving and no insurance. Successful dismissal of both charges.
R v B-T
Successful exceptional hardship argument following a careless driving offence.
P v S
Speeding matter. Despite the client’s recorded speed being over 100mph, Graham was able to persuade the court to impose penalty points only, rather than a substantial period of disqualification.
P v P
Successfully ran a defence of no intention to drive to counter a charge of drunk in charge.
P v S
Two failure to nominate offences. Graham persuaded the court that it was within its powers to limit the number of points imposed due to the offences being committed within an extremely close time-frame, meaning that the client kept their licence.
P v W
Failure to nominate. Successful statutory defence of client who did not have control of the vehicle at the time of the underlying speeding offence and, as such, could not reasonably establish who the driver was.
P v F
Drink Driving. Successful special reasons argument resulting in no disqualification and a conditional discharge.
P v L
Failure to nominate.
P v B
Speeding offence.
Military/Courts martial
Graham accepts instructions in military disciplinary proceedings. He has an ability to quickly and easily establish a rapport with serving personnel and assist them through the process. He is particularly adept at handling matters involving unusual or tricky issues. For example, he recently represented a Royal Marine charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Although the offence was admitted, the process was complicated by the serviceman's recent diagnosis and ongoing treatment for PTSD and other anxiety issues.
Similarly, Graham represented a RAF corporal charged with a domestic assault. Again, the offence was admitted, but any sanction higher than a fine would have resulted in serious career ramifications for the corporal. Graham was able to chart a course through the proceedings that resulted in the client receiving just a small fine.
Recent cases include:
MoJ v R
Appeared for a sailor charged with an offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the underlying offence having occurred in Bahrain.
R v Stephen Aliwell
Guilty plea to assault, Aylesbury Mags.
R v Samuel Brown
Careless driving and failure to provide, s.36 appointment, Salisbury Mags.
R v Jonathan Lewis
S.47 assault.
-
Articles -
Reasonable Excuses: What Might Be and What Might Not?
9th Apr 2020View Article -
Knife Crime Prevention Orders
7th Feb 2019View ArticleGraham Gilbert examines the relevance of a proposed amendment to the Offensive Weapons Bill currently making its way through Parliament, which will seek to introduce “Knife Crime Prevention Orders".
-
Lavinia Woodward & Natalia Sikorska
11th Aug 2017View Article3PB's criminal law barrister Graham Gilbert explains the details of the cases involving Lavinia Woodward and Natalia Sikorska.
-
Speeding Convictions, Avoiding Them & The Consequences
13th Feb 2017View Article3PB's Graham Gilbert on speeding convictions, avoiding them and their consequences. Graham Gilbert examines the recent sentencing decision of a man who used a device to avoid detection by police speed traps and asks if the penalty handed down was justified.
-
Reckless Arson: Decreasing Sentences?
24th Mar 2017View Article3PB's Graham Gilbert examines the trend for lesser sentences in offences of reckless arson.
Two recent appeals against sentences passed for offences of reckless arson have been successful and the sentences passed in each case have been reduced. It appears that this represents a growing trend for lesser sentences for this offence.
-
Imminent Attack
20th Jan 2017View Article3PB's Graham Gilbert examines the Attorney General's "imminent threat" criteria in the use of pre-emptive strikes. The Attorney General has said that the UK may use a preemptive attack against would-be terrorists in self-defence if an attack is "imminent". Graham Gilbert questions whether this is the best choice, given the difficulty the criminal courts have had with the concept.
-
-
Recommendations "Graham Gilbert recently represented our son in Crown Court hearing in Portsmouth. We met Graham on the day of the hearing, and he immediately put us at our ease. He provided us with clear information on what was happening and stayed in touch with us throughout the day (when the hearing wasn’t taking place) keeping us updated on the inevitably slow, court proceedings. After the hearing, when we could speak with our son, our son told us how helpful and clear Graham’s advice had been. Being at your son’s Crown Court hearing is a stressful event but we were in great hands and Graham’s counsel got our son the best result at court. Graham is an excellent barrister and we have no hesitation in recommending him." - Client
"Just wanted to thank you for all of the hard work you put into what turned out to be a far from straightforward case! I could not have asked for a more thoroughly prepared case and very impressive legal argument which eventually lead to an excellent case outcome. Your client care was first class and I appreciated the ease and speed with which I could reach you for advice." - Instructing solicitor feedback
"I am so grateful to you and Graham for all your help. You are absolutely right, its a great outcome and the legal advice and support made all the difference. Graham Gilbert was excellent." - Client feedback to instructing solicitor.
“Graham Gilbert was very professional and charming. Would recommend him highly.” - Client feedback to instructing solicitor.
“Once again thank you for all your thorough help in this successful prosecution and the hours of hard work sifting through the late disclosure of the evidence bundle the night before trial.” - Feedback from Environmental Health Officer.
Related Articles
-
3PB’s specialist crime and regulatory law barrister, Graham Gilbert (pictured here) was recently successful in prosecuting the Holiday Inn Express, Dunstable for a health and safety breach. In November 2018, a Holiday Inn Express employee was instructed by a manager to empty and clean a commercial oil fryer in the kitchen. The member of staff picked up the filled container and was immediately burned from hot oil melting through the thin plastic container that had...
Continue reading -
In R v James & Others at Snaresbrook Crown Court in London, 3PB's crime and regulatory barrister Graham Gilbert secured the acquittal of a client initially charged with money laundering in 2017. His client, Mr James, alleged that he had been duped by criminals into allowing money to pass through his account. Graham’s preparation and cross-examination allowed for the identification of a man who fitted the description given by Mr James in his police interview. The jury...
Continue reading -
3PB crime and regulatory barrister Graham Gilbert appeared before the Court of Appeal in R v STC LIMITED [2021] EWCA Crim 1237 in July 2021 representing three parties charged with offences under section 1 Knives Act 1997 (unlawful marketing of the items). The Court noted that, in its extensive experience, it had never been required to consider this piece of legislation previously. The matter is of particular note as, in coming to its decision, the Court...
Continue reading -
3PB sports law and disciplinary specialist barristers Nick Cotter and Graham Gilbert were successful in a FA appeal hearing on behalf of a talented 16 year old footballer, Nathan Hieatt, who in February 2020 was accused of spitting at a referee's foot and given a 5 year ban at the initial FA hearing. In spite of five witnesses from his team and his college tutor corroborating Nathan’s story, and with the referee having no independent...
Continue reading
