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 criminal specialist, Thomas Acworth, was led by Charles Row KC in the defence of JA, a woman who was accused of murdering her former long-term partner. The prosecution case was that, at the instigation of her daughter, JA planned to kill the deceased by luring him to a house where he was stabbed by her daughter’s boyfriend. Following an 11-week trial before Martin Spencer J at Salisbury Crown Court, the jury unanimously acquitted...
Continue reading -
Berenice Mulvanny 3PB Barristers' specialist criminal law barrister, led her fellow Crime and Regulatory crime colleague Graham Gilbert, in securing the conviction of 82-year old former teacher David Clarke. After a five-week trial at Brighton Crown Court, Mr Clarke was convicted unanimously of 45 counts of historic sexual offending against 14 boys committed whilst he was a teacher at a (now closed) private prep school in Sussex during the late 1970’s and 1980’s. Clarke's conviction...
Continue reading -
3PB's specialist criminal and regulatory crime barrister Jonathan Underhill, leading Emily Lanham (Pump Court Chambers), secured the only not guilty verdict following a 7-week, multi defendant trial alleging a criminal conspiracy to evade duty payable on illegal cigarettes and tobacco products. In an HMRC prosecution against 8 defendants, Jonathan and Emily's client was the sole defendant to be acquitted of his alleged role in a wide-ranging and long-running conspiracy trial, following 14 hours of jury...
Continue reading -
3PB Barristers' criminal barrister Nate Lara has successfully secured an acquittal for his client in relation to two allegations of exposure in a case heard at Portsmouth Crown Court. DH faced allegations of exposing himself to a family member on numerous occasions both in person and by phone. DH accepted that he committed the acts, however he denied his intention was to cause harm, as the law requires. The prosecution relied on DH’s responses in...
Continue reading
