Peter Pride > 3TG Barristers > London, England > Barrister Profile

Peter is a well-respected criminal advocate who acts as a leading and led junior in serious, long and complex multi handed cases. He is equally comfortable running such cases alone.

He is a Level 4 prosecutor for the CPS in London and the South East on both the General Crime Panel and the Specialist Panel (Serious Crime Group). Peter also defends in cases of similar gravity and complexity.

Many of Peter’s instructions come from CPS Specialist Crime Group Units and often he is requested by officers from the Flying Squad and Trident as their preferred choice of counsel, where he has an excellent reputation, particularly in dealing with multi handed gang shootings involving complex cell site evidence.

His practice ranges across all spectrums of crime but with a particular emphasis on cases involving young defendants and victims, gangs and firearms. He has established a reputation for dealing expertly with the complexities of DNA and cell site evidence and is particularly adept and knowledgeable in surveillance and police methodologies. He often prosecutes matters of a sensitive nature and has dealt with a vast number of cases involving intercept and RIPA, often requiring Preston briefings and PII hearings. His knowledge and insight has given him a significant advantage when defending these cases.
Peter is well respected amongst the Bar, solicitors and judiciary and is often praised by Judges for his calm, courteous and highly effective and persuasive manner.

He is particularly alive to the differing needs of all court users, be they children, vulnerable adults or professionals and the sensitivities required to those of differing cultural, religious and racial backgrounds.
Embracing digital working some years ago, Peter has found the Courts’ digital transition effortless. He is an accredited Pupil Supervisor and enjoys teaching and providing assistance to aspiring young barristers.

Particular expertise:

Firearms – possession, manufacture, shootings, armed robbery of banks, cash in transit, betting shops and carjackings;
Kidnap and blackmail;
Serious section 18 stabbings and shootings;
Attempted murder;
Honey trap cases;
Large scale drugs supply and importations, involving letters of request;
Fraud, including large scale multiple identity cases and internal frauds and complex POCA hearings;
Sex, rape and vulnerable witnesses.

Recently reported cases:

R V Sakyi [2014] EWCA Crim 1784 successfully upholding convictions for firearms offences.

R v Deacon and Others, Attorney General’s Reference Nos 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of 2014 [2014] EWCA Crim 651 – advising post-conviction on unduly lenient sentences, resulting in increased sentences of 15 years.

R v Williams [2012] EWCA Crim. 264, successfully upholding convictions for firearms offences on which 5 grounds had been given leave.

Recent notable cases:

Attempted Murder: 

R v T and P, armed robbery and shooting with victim receiving life threatening injuries.

R v T and two others, securing convictions for a kidnap and shooting incident with a reluctant victim.

R v W and another involving a shooting in a school playground.

R v O and S – attempted murder where the victim received 13 stab wounds.

Violence:

R v G and 2 others – blackmail, kidnap and false imprisonment.

R v U and 7 others – violent disorder: an extremely serious happy slapping case.

R v K and 6 others, retribution gang attacks, involving knives and petrol bombs and reluctant witnesses.

R v M and another, securing convictions for a “honey trap” kidnap and false imprisonment, with overseas evidence being relied upon.

Firearms:

R v D and 4 others (7 weeks), securing convictions as leading prosecuting counsel against silks involving firearms with extensive argument on the admissibility of gang evidence.

R v M and 3 others, involving a firearms stash.

R v C, securing convictions for a shooting incident and ruling out duress.

R v F and N, securing convictions for an armed robbery of a betting shop.

R v M and T, securing convictions in a shooting incident of intruders with a sawn off shotgun.

R v P, convictions secured in a series of armed carjackings.

R v J-C and C, armed robbery and shooting incident.

R v D and 3 others as leading Counsel in a 5-week conspiracy to rob cash-in-transits, involving extensive legal argument on hearsay and DNA and where the case depended largely upon cell site patterns and usage.

R v O and 3 others – armed robbery of jewellery shops – extensive cell site analysis involved.

R v D and another – armed robberies: cases were largely dependant upon cell site evidence.

R v B and 4 others – conspiracy to rob (knife point steaming) over 20 instances of robbery on trains – life threatening injuries to one victim caused by stabbing.

Sexual Assault:

R v K, a “baby shaking” case of an 88-day old baby; presenting evidence from consultant radiologists, neuroradiologists and peadiatricians to establish 6 distinct fractures over at least 3 different periods of abuse and ruling out defence of Osteogenesis Imperfecta.

R v S, successful acquittal of two completely separate rapes that were tried together.

R v S, securing convictions against a well-respected man of good character for indecently assaulting unrelated young females on trains.

R v H, successful defence of a man charged with a serious sexual assault of his ex-partner and pouring acid over her.

Fraud:

R v B and others – large scale £1 million plus fraud involving thefts from post offices and multiple identity benefit frauds.

R v L, successful prosecution of a “solicitor” impersonator who was offering legal services and fleecing multiple and vulnerable clients of funds.

R v L and 2 others, securing convictions in a highly sophisticated “inside” fraud.

R v D, defending a client charged with numerous VAT and corporation offences and false accounting.

Drugs:

R v P and 3 others, large scale drug importation, case reliant on telephone and surveillance evidence, with letters of request being issued.

R v A and 4 others: conspiracy to import high purity cocaine from Columbia against leading juniors, presenting many months of surveillance and telephone evidence.