Criminal Barrister Graham Gilbert represents drugs dealer arrested following on from Operation Fortress
13th March 2018
3PB Criminal barrister Graham Gilbert represented a defendant accused of intending to supply drugs to a value of £250,000. The case was heard in Winchester Crown Court.
For more information about the case, please click here.
Related News
-
3PB’s criminal law barrister Kate Davies, pictured here, has already successfully defended two different clients in two separate Crown Court trials for assault this month. Kate’s first client was charged with assault. The alleged assault was caught on CCTV. The defence was accident, and the case involved the cross-examination of four witnesses. The jury acquitted the defendant unanimously in less than an hour. Kate was instructed by Kate Green of Renshaw Derrick and Co Solicitors....
Continue reading -
3PB's criminal law barrister Tom Acworth, who is instructed in general crime, regulatory crime and police law, acted for FBD at first instance and in this Court of Appeal hearing. FBD had been convicted of 13 sexual offences, which were committed against five children in the late 1990s. He was sentenced to 32 years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal agreed with Tom’s submissions that the sentence was manifestly excessive and reduced the overall term of...
Continue reading -
3PB Barristers (3 Paper Buildings), one of the UK's largest chambers, is delighted to announce a record number of rankings - totalling 193 - in the Legal 500 2026’s edition which is published today, compared with 167 last year. A total of 123 3PB barristers are now ranked in the Legal 500, up from 108 last year. The set is ranked in 26 areas of law across 4 large UK Circuits (London, South Eastern, Western...
Continue reading -
3PB criminal law barrister Nate Lara (pictured here) has been successful in the Court of Appeal, arguing that the original sentence imposed in the Crown Court was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle. The defendant received a sentence of imprisonment of 30 months. Nate argued that despite the aggravating features the sentence was excessive, going outside the range in the relevant sentencing guidelines, without sufficient justification for doing so. Nate also argued that the court...
Continue reading
