In the News: overviews of the cases of John Worboys and Jon Venables.
5th March 2018
Criminal barristers Thomas Evans and Graham Gilbert provide overviews of the sentencing in the case of Black Cab rapist John Worboys and in the case of Jon Venables.
To read their analyses, please click here.
To view Thomas Evans' profile, follow this link.
Graham Gilbert's profile can be found here.
Related News
-
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’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 criminal and regulatory barrister Graham Gilbert (pictured here) appeared for Mr Grant St James, the owner of the popular Golden Retriever Experience, throughout the proceedings before the West Somerset Magistrates’ Court. He was instructed by Paul Loughlin, a partner with law firm Stephensons. Mr Grant St James pleaded guilty to a single offence of failing to ensure the welfare of animals under his care, in this instance near 40 golden retrievers. Despite the court...
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
