Graham defends and prosecutes in both Crown and Magistrates’ Court 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.
F v DPP
Graham appeared for the Respondent in an appeal against conviction and sentence for an offence under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (failing to provide information about the driver of a vehicle to police). Following legal submissions from both parties on a preliminary point of law, the court agreed with Graham's submissions and the appeal was withdrawn.
R v P
Burglary trial at Bournemouth Crown Court. Despite the evidence of two eye-witnesses, Graham's cross-examination lead to a hung jury and the Crown declined to pursue a re-trial.
R v D
Successful appeal against a conviction for a breach of a restraining order at Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v W
Appeared in an appeal against conviction at Southampton Crown Court. Graham persuaded the court to overturn the client's conviction for an assault by beating and then successfully resisted the Crown's application for a restraining order to be made on acquittal.
R v ON
Graham managed to secure a suspended sentence for a client charged with running a cannabis farm and abstracting electricity.
R v Q & H
Graham defended two clients (one a youth) charged with assault by beating. Both claimed to have acted in self-defence; one pre-emptively and one to defend his friend. This was successful and both were found not guilty. The Judge remarked that the key piece of evidence was a comment ascribed to the complainant by the defendants in interview with the police. Under Graham’s cross-examination the complainant stated that the comment was something he was likely to say and would say in the situation. This piece of evidence was key in undermining the complainant’s account of being the victim.
R v D
Graham successfully represented a client charged with harassment by establishing that the behaviour complained of was not, under case law, capable of amounting to harassing behaviour.
R v H
Secured a non-custodial sentence for a client who had breached his Sexual Offences Prevention Order by possessing multiple indecent images of children, including Category A images.
R v O & Ors
Represented one defendant in a seven-handed youth trial where all defendants faced charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and witness intimidation. Graham's client was the only defendant acquitted.
R v S
Successfully argued there was no case to answer to a charge of going equipped when the alleged theft for which the defendant supposedly going equipped had, on the Crown's case, already occurred.
R v F & Ors
Represented the second defendant in a cultivation of cannabis matter. The proceedings against the client were discontinued.
R v H
Secured a non-custodial sentence for client following several breaches of a suspended sentence order.
R v A
Successfully appeared for a man accused of exposing himself in a public park.
R v B
Secured an acquittal in a possession of a bladed article case. The defendant had the knife to use in the course of his employment.
R v C
Secured an acquittal for a defendant accused of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a security guard despite CCTV evidence.
R v P
Successfully ran a defence of no intention to drive to counter a charge of drunk in charge.
R v CB
Represented two clients. One was charged with driving offences and assaulting a police officer and the other with assaulting a police officer and obstructing a constable. Graham successfully argued that the Crown had not established a case to answer in relation to one of the driving offences resulting in that charge being dismissed at the close of the Crown's case. He then secured not guilty verdicts on all the remaining charges.
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:
R v Stephen Aliwell (g 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).
11th Aug 2017
Graham Gilbert explains the details of the cases involving Lavinia Woodward and Natalia Sikorska.
24th Mar 2017
3PB's Graham Gilbert examines the trend for lesser sentences in offences of reckless arson. 3PB'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.
13th Feb 2017
3PB'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.
20th Jan 2017
3PB'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.
"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.
- BPTC - City Law School - Very Competent
- GDL - City Law School - Commendation.
- BA Hons Ancient History - University of Exeter - 1st Class
- City Law School: 7 Bedford Row Criminal Law Prize Essay
- University of Exeter awarded a Dean's Commendation for "outstanding academic achievement"
Professional qualifications & appointments
- CPS Prosecutor – Grade 1
- Western Circuit
- Sport Resolutions Pro Bono Panel
- Criminal Bar Association
- Bar Pro Bono Unit
Graham Gilbert instructed as junior counsel in the case of Hayley Turner
Sports Barrister Graham Gilbert was Junior to Tim Naylor, the BHA’s Head of Regulation, in the independent disciplinary panel considering whether Jockey Hayl...Read more
Read our December 2017 round up of criminal news in brief by our crime team
Criminal barristers Thomas Evans, Graham Gilbert and Thomas Acworth bring you the latest edition of Criminal News in Brief. The Supreme Court Assistance by Defe...Read more
Liam Allen: So Close to a Miscarriage of Justice
3PB Criminal Barrister Graham Gilbert examines the Liam Allen case and the duty to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry. To read Graham's analysis, please cli...Read more