peteralcock

Peter Alcock

Call: 1995

recommendations

"A sophisticated advocate."

Legal 500 [2019]

"Defends and prosecutes across a range of serious crime cases."

Legal 500 [2017]

"Great with complex cases and very calming with clients."

Legal 500 [2016]

Appointments

Appointed as Grade 4 CPS advocates panel (including the specialist rape panel).

Education

BA (Hons) Philosophy, University College, London

Practice

Peter Alcock was educated at Lancing College where he was awarded a scholarship. He graduated from University College, London with a BA (Hons) in Philosophy in 1992. He was called to the Bar by Gray’s Inn in 1995. His extensive criminal practice covers the entire spectrum of crime including murder, serious non-fatal violence, rape, other sexual offences, dishonesty offences, fraud, drugs offences, duty evasion and illegal entry. His practice also includes regulatory and road traffic work. His practice involves both defence and prosecution work. He has the longstanding following of a significant number of excellent Defence Solicitors. He is also regularly instructed by the CPS as a grade 4 advocate (which includes the rape panel). Since 1995 he has been an extremely busy practitioner in his field and accordingly has acted both as Counsel alone and also as Junior Counsel in many high profile cases. In more recent years he has been instructed as Leading Counsel in such cases within his field including murder, drugs offences, fraud and duty evasion. He has superb presentation and communication skills which enable him to master complex, multi-handed and sensitive cases, including those involving defendants or witnesses who are vulnerable. He is currently instructed in significant on-going work of the above type including murder, serious fraud, regulatory and sexual offences.

Recent examples of the above work include:

Regina v LC (2016) Defending a man charged with s.18 GBH. The issue was identification.

Regina v Abdullahi (2016) Defending a man charged with drug supply. The issues were possession and intention to supply.

Regina v DM (2016) Prosecuting a man charged with rape. The issues were factual and fabrication.

Regina v Davies (2016) Defending a man with mental health issues charged with s.18 GBH. The issue was primarily intent.

Regina v JD (2016) Defending a young man charged with rape. The issues included consent, belief in consent, fabrication and intoxication.

Regina v HD (2015) Prosecuting a taxi driver charged with sexual offences. The issues were factual and fabrication.

Regina v Jordan Barringer (2015) Defending, as Junior Counsel, a young man with learning difficulties charged with attempted murder. The issue was primarily intent.

Regina v PM (2015) Defending a man charged with serious sexual offences. The issues were factual and fabrication.

Regina v JB (2015) Defending, as Junior Counsel, a young man with learning difficulties charged with rape and other serious sexual offences against family members. The issues were factual and fabrication.

R v Bodnar and others (2015) Defending, as Junior Counsel, the first of seven defendants charged with serious sexual exploitation/trafficking offences – issues, ID/factual.
Click here for Local News Report

R v Gaffney & 10 others (2014) Representing the first defendant who was charged, along with 10 others, with Prison Mutiny. The incident, which took place at HMP Highdown, was set against a background of transition to the new prison regime brought about by reduced funding to the Prison Services as a result of the current austerity measures.
Click here for News Report

R v Sharp (2014) Defending, as Junior Counsel, a man charged with the murder of an acquaintance. The issues were causation and participation.
Click here for BBC News Report
Click here for BBC News Report

R v Parker (2014) Defending a man charged with numerous regulatory offences and fraud. The key issues were factual in combination with their application to the regulations themselves.

R v K (2014) Defending, as Junior Counsel, a man charged with serial marital rape and child cruelty. There were numerous vulnerable complainants. The key issues were consent and factual.
Click here for article in the Daily Mail
Click here for further article in the Daily Mail

Regina v Lassayo & others (2014) Complex housing fraud. Represented a woman charged, along with six others, with conspiracy to defraud the London Borough of Southwark. The First Defendant was ‘the inside man’ in the Council’s Homeless Application Department. The other six defendants were applicants and co-conspirators who both applied for homeless housing and also assisted others in applying for homeless housing.
Click here for local news report

R v Cooper (2013) Defending a man charged with a series of historic serious sexual offences including rape. The defendant had been the Olympic Torch bearer for his community due to his local status. There were partial admissions to lesser offending against the same complainant which made the defences to the main charges all the more complex to advance. The issues were factual and fabrication.
Click here for BBC News Report

R v Mankelow (2013) Prosecuting a man charged with the attempted murder of a policeman. The issue was self defence.
Click here for news coverage

R v Bayford (2013) Prosecuting, on behalf of B.I.S. / Trading Standards, a man charged with regulatory offences under the Consumer Credit Act as well as other offences of dishonesty.

R v Esack (2013) Defending, as Junior Counsel, an ex police officer and football agent charged with murdering his estranged wife.  The issues were loss of control and diminished responsibility.
Click here for national news coverage
Click here for BBC News Report

R v Etheridge (2013) Defending as Junior Counsel a man charged with a campaign of rape and serious sexual offences. The defence was one of fabrication.
Click here for local news report

R v George (2013) Defending a multi-handed violent disorder.

R v M (2013) Defending as Junior Counsel a man charged with a campaign of rape and serious sexual offences.

R v Swift (2013) Defending as Junior Counsel a woman charged with a two handed indictment alleging s.18 baby shaking and child abuse.

R v Sturman (2013) Defending a man charged with rape.

R v Harrison (2012) Defending a man charged with child cruelty.

R v Dunn (2012) Defending as Junior Counsel in a 7 handed indictment alleging offences of manslaughter and perverting the course of justice.

R v Carraciolo (2011) Defending, in a lengthy trial, a man charged with fraud and money laundering.

R v Bridges (2011) Defending a man charged with rape and serious sexual offences.

R v Prendergast (2010) Prosecuting as Leading Counsel, a man charged with murder. The central issues were self-defence and provocation.
Click here for BBC Report

R v Benson & another (2010) Defending, as Junior Counsel, a man charged with kidnap, blackmail and false imprisonment during which the victim was raped. The central issues were fabrication and participation.

R v Davies & another (2010) Defending a woman charged with a number of offences of child cruelty towards children in her care. The central issue was one of injury causation on which there was a large amount of expert evidence.

R v Maher (2009) Defending, as Junior Counsel, a man charged with murder. The central issue was the identity of the murderer.

R v Douglas (2009) Prosecuting a man charged with rape. The central issue was consent.

R v Kiff & 3 others (2009) Defending a woman charged with the importation of class A drugs. The central issue was knowledge.

R v Dutton & 2 others (2009) Defending a man charged with a large- scale conspiracy to supply class B drugs.

R v Finlay (2009) Defending, as Junior Counsel, a man charged with numerous counts of rape and other sexual offences as well as further historic similar offences adduced as bad character. The issues were fabrication and collusion.

R v C & 5 others (2009) Defending, as Leading Counsel, a man charged with a large-scale conspiracy to supply class A drugs and concealing criminal property.

R v Aslan & 13 others (2009) Defending a man charged with large-scale conspiracy to assist unlawful immigration.

R v Shelbourne & Eames (2008) Prosecuting, as Junior Counsel, two men charged with murder. The central issue was participation.

R v Ainsworth (2008) Defending a man charged with rape. The central issue was consent.

R v Fitzsimmons & 2 others (2008) Defending, as Junior Counsel, a man charged with wide-ranging conspiracies to possess explosives and to steal/handle detonators, flares, grenades and munitions from the British Army. The central issues were the identity of the conspirators and participation.

R v Elliott & 3 others (2008) Defending, as Junior Counsel, a man charged with murder. The issues were both participation and also the scope of the joint enterprise.

R v Choudhury (2008) Defending, as Leading Counsel, a man charged with a large-scale fraud involving duty evasion and money laundering with an alleged benefit of over £7 million. the central issue was knowledge.

R v Smith & 2 others (2008) Defending a man charged with the importation of class A drugs. The central issue was the identity of those knowingly involved.

latest news