Webb v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary: An Overview
5th March 2018
Criminal barrister Graham Gilbert provides an analysis of Webb v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary and examines the attempt to define what “person for the time being in charge of the dog” may mean, in the context of a dog's Conditional Destruction Order (CDO).
To view Graham's analysis, click here.
Graham Gilbert's profile can be viewed here.
Related News
-
3PB Barristers is delighted to confirm another strong set of results for its Crime and Regulatory Crime team in Chambers and Partners’ 2026 edition published today. While the team retains its Band 1 ranking for Crime in the Western Circuit, with 9 of its practitioners ranked in this area of law; and maintains its 3 individual rankings for Health and Safety in the same Circuit, it welcomes a new ranking for Financial Crime in the...
Continue reading -
3PB crime and regulatory barrister Jonathan Underhill, who is a specialist in financial crime, successfully prosecuted a defendant for possession of £800,000 in cryptocurrency and £20,000 in cash. The D was charged with money laundering offences relating to Bitcoin and other crypto-assets as well as cash stemming from the sale of cannabis edibles on the Dark Web. Jonathan was instructed by the Complex Case Unit of Wessex CPS to advise on the case from the...
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 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
