Peter Doyle KC

Barrister

He has a reputation for taking on some of the most complex cases, both serious fraud and related cases as well as mainstream serious crime particularly murder and manslaughter cases.

An immensely experienced criminal defence practitioner instructed across a range of offences and disciplines.

Thorough, knowledgeable and strategically clever.

He never shies away from complex and contentious legal arguments.

His excellent & perfectly paced closing speeches underline his experience & ability.

Called in 1975; by 2002 when he took Silk, Peter Doyle KC had been instructed in a host of cases across a wide range of disciplines.

From employment and general contractual disputes, regulatory/discipline and criminal hearings and investigations inquests (death in custody, police fatal shootings and alleged defects in machine design and safe systems of rescue) and other health and safety disputes, to almost all aspects of criminal defence work in every ranking court including appearances before the Privy Council in appeals against conviction where the death penalty had been imposed.

He was instructed in three major Public Inquiries – Stephen Lawrence, the Marchioness Disaster and Victoria Climbie. He was also instructed to advise for the defence in the investigations following the July 2005 London suicide bombings, the May 2007 Manchester Arena bombing and the Stockwell fatal shooting of Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes.

Of particular note he was junior counsel for Ian Maxwell later acquitted of plundering pension funds, presented the leading Abuse of Process submissions and prepared the Petition of Parliament to access evidence given to it by individuals subsequently called by the Crown at trial.

As junior counsel he represented one the officers later acquitted of framing a member of the Guildford Four. He also defended a French citizen (acting as agent for British Intelligence) in his later acquittal of alleged sanction busting in connection with Russian military equipment. He conducted the lead cross-examination of his Handler.

After taking Silk, his work has largely involved defending in murder and manslaughter trials (but see the bombing and fatal shooting cases above).

His most recent cases have been for the defence in allegations of murder and serious offending and include the following examples:

R v Rhoad (Wolverhampton 2022): Representing the lead defendant alleged to have stolen rival charity bins across a number of counties. Issues of application and exercise by charities of powers to occupy land to raise funds and defendant’s honest but mistaken understanding of relevant regulations and his honest belief in his right to compound bins from third part sites. Need to consider complication of relevant Fundraising Regulations which required attendance as a prosecution witness of the Regulator.
R v X (Oxford 2023): The representation of a vulnerable girl aged 15 at the time of the alleged murder of her step-father by her mother’s live-in lover. Acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter. Complex family history extracted in cross-examination of the defendant’s mother who was a co-defendant. A detailed mitigation spanning the girl’s challenging life, abuse and vulnerability resulted in the imposition of a referral order.
R v X (Oxford 2023): Attempted murder. Autistic child defendant. Need for careful rules of engagement in the presentation of his evidence both in chief and in cross-examination.
R v Morrison (CCC 2023): For lead defendant in multi-handed murder on premises where drugs were believed to be present. Admitted causing fatal injuries but from behind partially opened door blocking his vision. Intention to harm but without murderous intent. Cross-examination of pathologist who accepted that the defendant’s case re causation was a possibility.
R v X (Aylesbury 2024): 16 year old boy at time of offence when he hit a youth a number of times on the head with a hammer. Involved with another youth. Initially indicted for attempted murder but eventually changed to s.18. Late plea of guilty. Obtained further adjournment for additional reports to be prepared. Highly intelligent youth but an earlier missed diagnosis of autism was discovered that had some relevance to his offending. Long period of custody avoided and reduced in practical terms to 8 months more than already served in secure accommodation pending his plea. Successful submissions that although a late plea the complications of advising in such a case upheld and thus greater credit given.

He presents to colleagues and professional clients alike on the practical approaches to the exercise of powers by various prosecuting authorities and the corporate penalty and reputational risks if convicted (of fraud or health and safety breaches) as well as the courts powers re Director Disqualification.

In addition to membership of relevant practitioner associations in fraud and crime he was the founding Chair of the Kalisher Trust and now the leader of its Senior Counsel Group. He4 is centrally involved in setting and marking the annual Kalisher Essay competition.

Please refer to the Directory references at the top of this Profile for his reputational standing.

Recognised in Doyles Leading Criminal Law Counsel - London 2024 list.

Professional Memberships

Proceeds of Crime Regulatory Association (POCLA)
The Association of Regulatory and disciplinary Lawyers (ARAL)
The Financial Services Lawyers Association (FSLA)
Criminal Bar Association
South Eastern Circuit

Articles & Publications

Barton and Booth v The Queen - When Judicial Opinion Converts to Binding Precedent, 30 April 2020 (click here).
The Stalking Protection Act 2019 - an analysis of the Act taking effect on 20 January 2020 (click here)
The Age of Criminal Responsibility - a comparison of England & Wales to other EU countries (click here).
Don't slow me down. Examines the potential unfairness in playing CCTV of fatal incident in slow motion given its tendency to give a false impression that a defendant has more time to form the required intent than was in truth the case.
A wrong turn. An analysis of the ruling in R v Jogee and Ruddock on the application of the principles of joint enterprise and the role of secondary parties.
R v Jogee. Defeating joint enterprise. A case study." (See R v A and Other ibid)
Controlling and Coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship.
Public spaces protection orders - A need for caution?
The SFO's operational guidance and procedures for S.2 interview. The lawyer and the interviewer.
The reckless senior banker - S.36 financial services (Banking reform) Act 2013.
Fining large corporate environmental offenders - Why size matters.
The absconding defendant in confiscation proceedings.
Tracing the proceeds of money laundering - Keeping and eye on the big picture - feeling the substance and not the width (Federal Republic of Brazil v Durant International Corporation).
The treatment in confiscation proceedings of VAT accounted for and or paid to HMRC - R v Harvey (2015) UKSC 73
New measures in the field of director disqualification - The small business enterprise and Employment Act 2015.
Corporate bribery investigations and the potential for mandatory or discretionary exclusion from EU public sector contracts.

Fraud and Financial Regulation / Proceeds of Crime Act

R v Hunte & Others - Successfully represented the second defendant (described by the Crown as D1’s “right hand man”) in an alleged multi-million pound carbon credit and diamond fraud; exposed 'expert' witness & disclosure failings, leading to collapse of prosecution case. A full report of the case can be read here.
R v S & Others - Five - count bribery and corruption prosecution brought by the SFO. Successful acquittal on majority of counts. Allegations that in order to secure valuable contracts in Kenya, Mauritania and Somalia and the defendants and their company bribed public officials.
R v Ahmed - Defence of proprietor of Money Exchange business in alleged multi-million pound money-laundering to Far East destinations.
R v Jaggers - Overseas based investment fraud. Money laundering-successful submissions that Crown Court lacked jurisdiction as substantial activity occurred abroad. Operation and limitations of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 re promotion to UK investors from outside UK of shares in USA companies. Acquitted of allegations under Financial Services and Management Act 2000.
R v G & Others - Instructed as new legal team to mitigate and deal with confiscation proceedings on behalf of former director who had pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to defraud (SFO prosecution) arising out of the collapse of investment group. Losses in the order of £250m.
R v Doutrepont & Others - Instructed by second defendant in alleged multi-million pound Ponzi fraud. Eventually prosecution accepted guilty plea from him to lesser offence of making reckless financial statements to investors. Acquitted of main charges.
R v Allen & Others - Investment fraud. Bank and Finance House defrauded of over £2m during expansion of Babushka Vodka bars in UK.
R v Prudhoe - Defence of lead defendant in multi-million pound invoice discounting fraud committed against three private banks. Abuse of process- submission that SFO had effected for its own purpose the deportation of the defendant from Jordan in the absence of an Extradition Treaty “disguised extradition”.
R v Ford - Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) - the power of the courts to confiscate pension funds where defendant’s interest is only a future contingent one.
Webber v Webber - (Before the President of Family Division) Instructed by CPS as Intervener. Issue post POCA whether the former practice in ancillary relief and enforcement of confiscation order proceedings (reserved to a judge with experience of both jurisdictions) was to be applied in the Crown Court.
R v G - Fraud - Confiscation. Proper approach to apportionment of ‘benefit’ where the defendant is acting as agent for principal alleged fraudsters where proceedings against the latter are discontinued but their guilt maintained.
R v R - Successful defence re VAT fraud. Defendant who was an expert in radio transmission technology, alleged to have covertly monitored radio traffic between customs officers to thwart their attempts to break a carousel fraud. Prosecution discontinued after jury failed to reach verdict.
R v W - Successful defence of Isle of Man entrepreneur bringing company to Aim. HMRC prosecution re tax evasion and money laundering in connection with investment funds obtained in the UK and Russia.
British Petroleum v Brown - Defence in High Court of senior BP buyer in claim for recovery of secret profits in bid irregularities for supply of North Sea oil rig equipment.
R v B - Defence of Credit Suisse Compliance Officer re allegations of insider dealing by use of price-sensitive information to run spread-betting club.
R v B - Successful defence of private air cargo operator for alleged VAT fraud.
R v Dimsey - Defence of Jersey accountant – Revenue fraud – Treatment of off-shore profits and extent of meaning of “pecuniary advantage”. Case went to House of Lords now reported as R v Dimsey (HL(E) (2001) 3 WLR 843.
R v G - Million pound aviation re-insurance fraud – defence of Lloyds underwriter.
R v Maxwell - Successful defence of Ian Maxwell in £400 million alleged pension fraud.

R v T and others (Birmingham CC leading Oliver Woolhouse, instructed by Andrew Brockelhurst, Smith Dawson.) One of four defendants charged with murder (acquitted) as well as joint possession of D1’s murder weapon; a sword inflicting seven wounds one of which was fatal - (acquitted). Prosecution alleged that all defendants were armed with knives and relied on CCTV evidence. None was charged with having their own weapon. CCTV prosecution expert eventually agreed with defence that no positive case could be asserted greater than the defence case, namely that reflected light demonstrated by enhanced CCTV footage was not from a blade but a mobile phone. Defendant admitted being at the scene but without prior knowledge that D!1had a weapon, that the weapon was produced by D1 shortly before the stabbing when the defendant was not in a position to see it and the defendant did not participate in actual violence at the time. Defendant 19 and of good character at time of event in July 2019. 11 months on bail before charged. Then nearly a year in custody before trial (now 21). Acquitted of murder and joint possession of the murder weapon; convicted of manslaughter on finding that he had gone to the scene to fight where some harm was likely and the fight caused the death. Judge accepted all the defence propositions re lack of knowledge of the murder weapon and insufficient evidence to be sure he had his own weapon. Sentence as a CAT C culpability case to 5 years.
R v M - The defendant (19) and his brother (17) drove onto a caravan site to take scrap. They were confronted and the brother having been assaulted ran away. The defendant began to drive away but he struck the female deceased who had been standing directly in front of his vehicle. He dragged her under his vehicle for some meters before driving over her completely. She suffered horrific injuries and died at the scene. He picked up his brother nearby and speeded away before abandoning the vehicle 11 mile away in a field. He had no license to drive and the vehicle was mechanically unsound. Although denied by witnesses, the defence case was that the brothers had been attacked at the scene and were trying to escape further violence and in his panic the defendant had been unaware that he had hit anyone. The defendant accepted that his driving was unlawful (recklessness) and dangerous but the prosecution rejected his plea to manslaughter. Their case was that no violence had occurred at the scene. Following a trial over several days including prosecution expert reconstruction evidence, the jury acquitted of murder in 72 minutes. The defendant was sentenced to 7 years for manslaughter.
R v K - The defendant admitted killing his former girlfriend inflicting over 25 stab injuries as well as wounding her two rescuers. At the time of the killing a court could reduce credit for a guilty plea if, as was the case, the evidence was overwhelming. By the date of trial the new Sentencing Guideline disregarded the “weight of the evidence”. Successful submission that the new Guideline should be applied as there was evidence of earlier jurisprudence pre-dating the killing that it was inappropriate to have regard to it.
R v T - Successful defence to murder/manslaughter of a youth stabbed to death. The 17 year old defendant admitted presence at the scene and punching the deceased in the course of a fight in which his co-accused was involved. The latter produced a knife and inflicted a number of injuries including a single fatal stab wound to the heart. The defendant denied knowledge that a knife was being carried and knowledge that it was being used during the encounter.
R v B & Others - Successful defence to allegation of murder/manslaughter. Female defendant accused of acting as a go-between and get-away driver for two co-accused drug suppliers who arranged to meet the deceased to confront him about a drugs deal and stabbed him to death.The defendant admitted arranging the meet and acting as driver both to and from the scene of the murder but denied knowledge or foresight that an assault with murderous intent would be the result of the meeting.
R v A - Successful halt to murder trial and reduced sentence for manslaughter to reflect the fact that the defendant had been at risk of a miscarriage of justice.The defendant was indicted with others for murder following a group attack on two members of a rival group ambushed in their vehicle. The defendant was alleged by the driver to have approached him with a 10” kitchen knife and then walk to the front nearside where, after the front window had been smashed, he leant in and delivered a single fatal stab wound to the back of the victim as the latter was trying to escape. The pathology was consistent with such an attack. The previous day the defendant had been arrested for being in possession of a similar knife when he had approached the same vehicle in which the deceased was a passenger. He had pleaded guilty to that offence which was opened to the jury.
The defendant admitted his involvement in an attack and punching and kicking the deceased but denied possession of a knife or knowledge that a knife was at the scene. The prosecution accepted pleas to unlawful act manslaughter by the co-accused but rejected the defendant’s plea. A defence expert had attempted to enhance served footage captured on CCTV and a mobile phone at the time of the attack and although the images were improved it left open for the jury the issue of possession and use of the knife. On day three of the trial and prompted by the defence expert report the prosecution instructed a civilian technical team employed by the police to review the mobile phone footage taken on an Iphone. They discovered that the mobile phone footage had not been taken from the first saved image but from a later saved image where the pixels were degraded. Examination of the first saved image was 33% clearer than the footage served in the case. Not only did it show that the defendant was not armed but it was possible to see a small knife in the possession of another individual X who had fled the jurisdiction . It was also possible to make out the feet of the deceased from which it could be inferred that he had escaped to the rear of the vehicle and was now face down. The footage captured X moving into the vehicle and stabbing the deceased. The pathologist viewing this material confirmed that the track of the wound was consistent with this attack.
On the judge’s direction the defendant was acquitted of murder. As to his plea to unlawful act manslaughter it was successfully submitted that his sentence should be significantly discounted for the peril he had faced of being wrongly convicted of murder based on inadequate disclosure of material in the possession of the police. An urgent protocol was submitted to all Forces to alert them to the risks of downloading from a smart phone anything other than the first saved images as opposed to those that may also have been saved to icloud and other devices or drives.
R v S - Successful defence to murder/manslaughter and second burglary of same premises. Defendant with co-accused (also acquitted) alleged to have committed a domestic burglary where violence meted out to victim (both convicted of this burglary) and a week later returned together to burgle again. During the course of the second burglary it was alleged that one or both acting together stamped and strangled the victim to death. The evidence against S was based on his disputed confessions to five different individuals with whom he had associated while in prison when serving a sentence for an unrelated burglary. The cross-examination of these witnesses not only explored their unreliability given their medical/mental history but also in a number of cases their association with an individual who had been arrested for the murder based on the information from an informant but who was subsequently NFA’d by the police. The quality of the police investigation came under scrutiny and was criticised; not least because the identity of the witnesses and arrangements for them to be seen by the police had been “choreographed” by the original suspect.
R v A & Others - Successful lead submission of "no case to answer". Four defendants accused of retribution stabbing. The two principals pleaded guilty. The prosecution relied on Whats App messaging to prove an intention to stab A. In fact although the defendants travelled to meet A his brother B was also present and he was stabbed by the principals. There was no evidence that the other two defendants had engaged with A or B. It was successfully submitted that applying the recent case of R v Jogee there was no case to answer as the prosecution had failed to prove that they had shared with the principals any common intention or purpose to stab B.
R v C - Successful defence to murder/manslaughter. The defendant and his employer ( who lived in the same house) argued at home and in the course of the argument the defendant armed himself with a kitchen knife to defend himself from an attack by the victim with fists and a chair. The latter received a single fatal stab wound to the heart. The issue for the jury was whether the stabbing was deliberate and unlawful or whether as contended for by the defendant accidental when in pursing his attack on the defendant the victim impaled himself on the blade. Detailed cross-examination of the prosecution pathologist on causation of injury as well as highly contentious factual evidence provided by witnesses to the incident.
R v A - Successful submission that murder be reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Defendant stabbed his wife and then be-headed her in the course of a psychotic incident. Need for careful analysis and presentation to the Crown and court of the defendant's medical history over many years he otherwise being an intelligent university educated man.
R v A - Successful defence of teenage indicted for murder in an alleged gang retribution shooting. Analysis of CCTV and defendant's physical "role" leading up to the shooting including alleged harbouring of the shotgun by him in his home in advance and preparation for the shooting.
R v M - Successful defence to murder/manslaughter. One of two defendants who went to the victim's address to steal drugs. No drugs found and so he was kidnapped and driven away in his own van to another location. En route as a result of a faulty rear door he fell out onto the highway at speed and died two days later. Issues of causation of injuries. Many ruled out in cross-examination as being caused by unlawful violence. Defendant exonerated from any physical attack before the kidnapping including any joint enterprise attack with co-defendant.
R v C - Successful defence of one of three registered doormen accused of manslaughter having ejected the violent victim from licenced premises. Issues not only as to the conduct of the deceased and the need for restraint and ejection from the premises but also causation of death in the context of recognised restraint procedures.
R v S - Successful defence to charge of murder/manslaughter. Young man in argument at home with his partner. Allegation that he had beaten her and that she had been found dead at the foot of stairs leading from the bedroom where the alleged fatal attack had occured. Issue for the pathologists was whether her injuries that caused her death were in fact accidentally inflicted when she lost her balance in the argument and fell down stairs.
R v L - Successful defence to murder and conspiracy to murder. Defendant was a director of a company whose son was being bullied. He and another arranged for the latter's London contacts to attend and put fear into the bully to stop his conduct. Agreement that some injury would be inflicted. The contact met the defendant and agreed to go to the bully's house. In fact he went to the wrong address and when armed with a knife stabbed an innocent young man to death. Unusual case of the stabber having recently been released from a sentence for murder which conviction was opened to the jury. Defence of ignorance of use of a weapon and co-defendant having embarked on a violent frolic of his own.
R v R - Rape and sexual offences requiring cross-examination of several child and vulnerable witnesses. Martial Arts teacher tried for offences against pupil committed over several years. Role of Child Protection Officers and Social Services in dealings with the defendant and victim where to their knowledge and with parent approval the defendant had been allowed or encouraged to effectively act in loco parentis. Issues of disclosure.
R v B - Misconduct in Public Office. Defence of senior Customs Officer accused of facilitating the release of large quantity of heroin to dealers in the UK without authority. His responsibility under International Treaty working from Pakistan was to arrange for controlled and supervised importations of heroin with a view to arresting dealers in the UK. Issue- were the drugs released accidentally or deliberately.
R v O - Instruced for lead defendant in multi-million pound "boiler room" fraud.
R v K - Successful defence of Consular Official in alleged multi-million pound sale of arms to the IRA.
R v A - Successful defence of one of three Surrey Police officers who interviewed one of the “Guildford Four”. Allegations that interviews fabricated resulting in miscarriage of justice. Trying factual issues nineteen years after the event. Reconstructing the investigation.
R v B - Successful defence of Deputy Chief Constable of Surrey alleged to have indecently assaulted a member of his civilian staff.
R v B - Misconduct in Public Office (“the Sussex shooting case”). Successful defence of senior officer in charge of firearms operation. The victim was fatally shot when mistakenly believed to be reaching for a firearm in the course of a raid on his home. The defendant planned the operation without knowing that he was basing his approach on flawed intelligence provided by others.

Tribunals

He has enormous experience in discipline investigations and tribunal hearings. Whatever the profession, these cases present a major distraction in a client’s work and family life; much is at stake in terms of reputation and career advancement as well as financially. Considerable client care required, often during a protracted investigation.
With a clear grasp of the relevant regulatory framework as well as relevant guidance and case precedent he is perfectly placed to advise at the early stages of an investigation providing sound tactical insight into the way forward including drafting detailed responses to complaints across a number of disciplines e.g. early proactive representations in the course of the investigation into alleged departure from medical standards and issues of "fitness to practice" as well as Health and Safety investigations into fatal accidents in the workplace.
In cases where a tribunal hearing cannot be avoided he brings to bear, on what are invariably fact-based disputes his vast experience as a defence advocate in criminal cases, with the added ability to adapt his expert jury approach to the professional regime in question and the particular discipline regime and tribunal engaged.
Has a reputation for dealing with sometimes very sensitive cases where the approach to cross-examination requires a subtle blend of pressing home the defence case but not at the expense of alienating the fact finders.
He is quick to expose systematic failures in policy formulation and implementation by those in authority over a client which has led to an unintended departure by the client from best practice.
Advising individuals, corporations and professional advisers ( eg accountants lawyers medical profession) as to obligations and strategic approach to SFO s.2 Notices and regulatory investigations including all aspects of potential conflicts of interest, issues of client confidentiality, advice and litigation privilege and the role of/and protection of the interests of “whistle blowers” and treatment of same by employers.

Public and Statutory Inquiries

The Victoria Climbié Inquiry – represented Commanders in charge of the Child Protection Teams following the cruel treatment and subsequent murder of Victoria. Complete review of multi-agency relationships and role of police in protecting vulnerable children.
The Marchioness/Bowbelle Inquiry – represented one of the lookouts on the Bowbelle following the collision between it and The Marchioness. Complete review of history of the use of the vessels, command structures and practices on the River Thames.
The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry – represented the three Senior Investigating Officers in charge of the murder investigation. Review of the quality of the investigation and rebutting allegations of corruption and individual racism. Complete review of procedures then in place for racist killing investigations.
Instructed on behalf of CEO of a company the subject of a BIS Inspectors Inquiry (Reported 2009) into the affairs of Phoenix Venture Holdings Limited, MG Rover Group Limited and other companies.