![]() |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||
Year of Call: 1985
Profile
Peter Gower QC is a barrister specialising in crime and regulatory work. His practice in his early career was wide ranging in both criminal and civil jurisdictions and has always included an element of regulatory work. In 1991 Peter was appointed as Standing Counsel to the DTI (now DBERR). Within this context he has undertaken a substantial number of prosecutions in relation to offences which typically have come to light in the wake of personal or corporate insolvency. These include offences under the Insolvency Act 1986, the Companies Act 1985 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. These cases are often long and complex, and can be commercially or politically highly sensitive. The Department has continued to instruct Peter as Queen’s Counsel. He has delivered lectures to the Department’s legal team on fraudulent trading and (last year) on the preparation and presentation of complex fraud cases. This followed the successful prosecution of a man charged with offences arising out of his conduct in relation to eight different companies. The work he has done over the years for the DTI/DBERR and other prosecuting authorities (including the CPS, HM Revenue and Customs, the Department of Health, the NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service and various local authorities – mainly in relation to alleged breaches of planning legislation) has been counter-balanced by his defence practice – which over the years has accounted for about half his work. As a Silk, he is increasingly instructed to act for the defence. Recent defence cases:
Peter Gower QC is accustomed to, and enjoys, working as part of a team which often includes not only other lawyers, but expert witnesses and senior business executives. Peter has sat as a part-time judge since 2002, which has brought another dimension to his advocacy. He is as an able lawyer with a good brain and an appetite for hard work but, above all, as an outstanding advocate – one who is able to communicate clearly and persuasively with both judge and jury. |
|||||