Peter read Law at Liverpool University and was called to the Bar by the Inner Temple in 2007. He received the Pegasus Scholarship from the Inn in 2008 and worked at the Louisiana Capital Assistance Center in New Orleans before joining St John’s Buildings in 2011. His practice incorporates crime and regulatory law. He is able to accept instructions via direct public access.
- Criminal Bar Association
- Crown Prosecution Service Grade 2 Prosecutor
- Accredited for Direct Public Access instructions
Twitter feed: @gilmoursjb
Peter regularly prosecutes and defends crime in the magistrates’ court, youth court and crown court. He has experience of cases concerning drugs, assault, domestic violence, sexual assault, theft, POCA, public disorder, motoring, harassment, offensive weapons, witness intimidation. He is a Grade 2 prosecutor with the Crown Prosecution Service and has also undertaken private prosecutions on behalf of the Royal Mail, the Department of Work and Pensions and HMRC. Peter accepts instructions to defend both publicly funded and privately paying clients.
Contempt of Court
Network Rail & QBE Insurance v Dermody & Dermody, Manchester, May 2017
The Claimants alleged that the Defendants had exaggerated the extent of an injury sustained by the First Defendant in the course of his employment. Peter represented the Second Defendant, mother of the First Defendant. After a trial, the case against Peter’s client was found to be “totally without merit and lacking any real basis” and was accordingly dismissed.
Accident Exchange v George-Broom & Others, London, June 2017
The Claimant effectively alleged an industrial-scale conspiracy to commit perjury, impacting around 30,000 civil claims all over the country. This was a highly complex case, involving approximately two million pages of evidence and a trial bundle that ran to over 14,000 pages. Peter represented the Fourth Defendant throughout the case, which culminated in an 8 week trial at the High Court.
R v K, Warrington and Chester, 2016Peter’s client was an 18-year-old man charged with two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault. Peter came into the case late, but was able to identify unused material disclosed by the prosecution which fatally undermined the credibility of one of the complainants. Peter successfully argued for the material to be admitted into evidence, following which the prosecution accepted that the complainant concerned could not longer be relied upon. Accordingly, not guilty verdicts were directed in relation to the rape allegations. The trial was re-started with a new jury and Peter went on to secure a verdict of not guilty in relation to the remaining sexual assault count.
Durham Trading Standards v X (2016)The Trading Standards Authority charged Peter’s client with supplying a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition, which threatened to ruin the reputation of his motor trading business. Peter drafted an argument that the prosecution should be stayed as an abuse of process, highlighting flaws in the way the decision to prosecute had been made and the way in which the prosecution had been conducted. The Authority considered Peter’s argument and abandoned its prosecution. The client’s good business reputation was preserved without the need to stand trial.
R v Logan, Newport Magistrates’ Court (2016)Peter’s client was charged with driving without due care and attention after she changed direction on a roundabout, colliding with a motorcyclist. Peter relied on expert accident reconstruction evidence to fatally undermine the assumptions on which the prosecution case was based. His client was accordingly found not guilty.
R v Suleman & Others (2015)Peter represented a client charged with facilitating a child sex offence. Peter's client was prosecuted along with several others who were charged with child sex offences, child abduction and facilitating child sex offences. After seven days of trial, during which Peter successfully cross-examined a key prosecution witness, the Crown conceded that there was insufficient evidence against Peter's client and a not-guilty verdict was returned.
R v Woods & Gharoon (2014)Peter was a led junior for a client facing allegations of fraud, specifically cheating at online poker. The prosecution alleged a gain of over £70m had been made. The case involved thousands of pages of IP address logs, bank statements and records of communications spanning a period of several years. Peter assisted in organising and cross referencing this vast amount of evidence and in preparing the cross examination of prosecution witnesses. The trial resolved with guilty pleas being entered to some counts, together with an agreement limiting the amount to be recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act to a little over £1m.
R v. French Birmingham Magistrates' Court, August 2014Peter's client faced a charge of failing to provide information as to the identity of a driver. Peter successfully ran a statutory defence under s.172(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (famously relied upon by Christine Hamilton) arguing that his client could not have known who was driving his vehicle at the material time, resulting in an acquittal.
R v. Baxter & Howard Liverpool Magistrates' Court, April 2014Peter represented the second defendant charged with offences under the Public Order Act 1968. The prosecution witnesses were two police officers and two police community support officers. Both defendants were acquitted after Peter's cross-examination of the officers revealed fundamental inconsistencies in the prosecution case.Book BarristerBack to top
R v. Hoskins, Doolan & Doolan Amersham Crown Court, October 2012Peter represented one of three defendants charged with attempted robbery. CCTV showed the victim, a student, being attacked and then chased through the university campus with a plank of wood. Peter's client was acquitted by the jury, whilst his two co-defendants were convicted and sentenced to 20 months' and 15 months' imprisonment.
Peter has a growing practice in regulatory work, and has defended clients in cases concerning Health and Safety Regulations, COSHH Regulations, and the Licensing Act 2003.
Health and Safety Executive v. Ali Trafford Magistrates' Court, September 2014Peter represented a defendant facing alleged breaches of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and failures to comply with Improvement Notices. The case centred on land law and insolvency issues relating to control of the properties concerned at the relevant times.
Rossendale Borough Council v. Bork Burnley Crown Court, September 2012Peter successfully appealed against a sentence imposed for numerous regulatory breaches committed by the owner of a petting farm and riding establishment. On appeal, his client's unpaid work requirement was reduced from 240 to 150 hours.
R v Ali Sheffield Magistrates' Court, May 2012Peter represented a client charged with numerous breaches of the Licensing Act 2003.Book BarristerBack to top
R V SLProsecution for ill-treatment of a person lacking capacity under s.44 Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The defendants had allowed a resident of the care home at which they worked to fall out of bed and shatter her pelvis. They then failed to seek medical assistance for around 24 hours. The incident resulted from shortcuts being taken due to insufficient staffing numbers.
Before coming to the Bar, Peter worked as an adjudicator at the Financial Ombudsman Service. He specialised in handling complaints about mis-sold investments, with a particular focus on products that had been sold on the basis of their potential to reduce or avoid tax liabilities. As a barrister, Peter is instructed by HMRC to prosecute cases of tax evasion and to pursue cash forfeiture.Book BarristerBack to top
R v Yusuf & Yusuf, Preston, June 2017Peter successfully defended his clients from an application by the local authority for a Business Rates Liability Order. The clients owned a number of industrial units in relation to which approximately £3,800 of business rates were unpaid. Peter was able to establish that the units had been in rateable occupation at the material time, so that his clients were not liable for the rates.
Peter accepts instructions directly from the public for advice and representation across a range of areas.Book BarristerBack to top
InquestsBook BarristerBack to top
In the matter of JE (Cumbria Coroners Court)This matter related to a road traffic accident in which three people had died – the driver had some drugs in his system and was driving over the speed limit, so there were questions about the extent to which those factors caused the deaths.