Nottinghamshire surgeon jailed for attempted murder of senior colleague

A plastic surgeon has been jailed for life for the attempted murder of a senior colleague, despite his attempts to to frustrate the legal process.

!n the middle of the night of 14 January 2021, Peter Brooks, 61, cycled from his house in Southwell, Nottinghamshire, to the home of Graeme Perks, carrying two containers of petrol, a crowbar and a knife. Clad in camouflage clothing, Brooks broke into the Perks’ family home through a conservatory door while Mr Perks, his wife and his son were upstairs sleeping.  He then doused the inside of the house with petrol, including the stairs leading down from the bedrooms.

Before he could set it alight, he was disturbed by Mr Perks who had come downstairs on hearing the noise. Brooks stabbed Mr Perks in the abdomen causing life-threatening injury.

After the attack, Brooks cycled back to his house and was later discovered asleep in a residential garden having taken an overdose. He had been subject to disciplinary issues at work, and it was clear that Brooks held a grudge against Mr Perks for his involvement.

Brooks was tried for attempted murder and attempted arson with intent to endanger life, as well as possession of the knife he took to Mr Perks’s house. After a trial in 2022 had to be aborted mid-way through, and several attempts by Brooks to frustrate the justice system, he was convicted in April, after a four week trial at Loughborough Court Centre. Brooks did not attend proceedings and chose not to be represented. He was today, Monday 9 June sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17 years and 223 days. He was also given a restraining order preventing him from contacting the Perks family.

Sam Shallow from the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Peter Brooks committed an act of extreme violence, attempting to murder a highly respected colleague. This was a planned, calculated attack, in which Brooks showed he was determined to kill his former colleague.

“Since committing these atrocious acts, Brooks has sought to evade responsibility. He has requested late adjournments, dispensed with his legal team, and used his health to avoid proper progress of the court proceedings. On each of the nine occasions the case has been listed at court, the prosecution team has been ready.

"Justice has now caught up with Brooks.

“His victim was fortunate to escape with his life and his whole family were in danger from Brooks’s inexplicable actions. Despite the physical and emotional trauma they have endured, they have come to court to tell their story on two separate occasions. This has been a long process for them, but I hope that finally seeing these proceedings coming to a close will help them in their recovery from this ordeal.”

Building the case: when defendants choose not to attend court

The trial of Peter Brooks was extremely unusual because the defendant was not present throughout and was not represented by a legal team. Brooks chose to dispense with his legal representatives and did not attend court.

All defendants have the right to defend themselves in court. However, after careful consideration, the CPS applied to proceed with the trial in Brooks’s absence.

Conducting the trial in the absence of a defendant presented additional challenges for the CPS. The prosecution had to prove all the offences to the jury. While this is true of any criminal trial, the lack of participation meant that straightforward and non-controversial evidence could not be agreed as would usually happen when a defendant is present and represented. This meant that some witnesses had to give evidence to the jury and have statements read out in full that would otherwise have been treated as agreed facts.

In a case of attempted murder, the prosecution must prove that the defendant specifically intended to kill the victim. In this case we presented evidence of the lengths Brooks had gone to in ensuring his attack would be fatal. He spread a large amount of petrol inside the house including up the stairs, which would have ensured a fire would be take hold quickly and make it impossible to escape. Even though Brooks was interrupted before he was able to start the fire, he had a backup plan to carry out the murder as evidenced by the knife he brought with him.

The prosecution presented evidence showing the severity of Mr Perks’s injury and heard evidence from the surgeon who treated him. The conclusion from this witness was that most patients who suffered this sort of attack would not have survived.

The prosecution does not have to prove a motive for an offence, but in this case the background to the attack seemed to provide the explanation. Having established the animosity Brooks held towards Mr Perks, the prosecution presented evidence from CCTV showing Brooks’s cycle journey to Mr Perks’s home.

The prosecution also provided evidence of the items used by Brooks in the attack, still stored with his bike in his garage and much of it containing DNA evidence that it had been used in the attack.