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 (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’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 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 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
