Knife crime prevention orders: an article by Public and Regulatory and Crime Barrister Graham Gilbert
7th February 2019
Graham 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".
Related News
-
3PB is delighted to confirm that its Crime and Regulatory Crime team remains top tier ranked in the latest Legal 500 edition for Crime (General and Fraud) in the Western Circuit with a total of 13 rankings. The crime group retains its tier 2 ranking for Business and Regulatory Crime (incl. Health and Safety) in Western. Crime clients regard 3PB as ‘a massive set with a solid stable of highly competent, persuasive and talented advocates...
Continue reading -
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 -
Three of 3PB's crime and regulatory crime team (pictured left to right) - Kate Lumsdon KC, leading Thomas Evans, and Nick Robinson (led by Zafar Ali KC of 23ES) - have secured the acquittal of their respective clients following a six-week trial at Winchester Crown Court. Four defendants stood trial arising from two linked incidents involving e-bikes being deliberately rammed by vehicles as part of an ongoing feud. Both clients, who were youths, were alleged...
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
