Peter Alcock
Call: 1995
Direct access

Peter Alcock is recommended in both Legal 500 UK Bar Guide and the Chambers UK Bar guide.

Leading Individual

Crime

He has an extensive practice covering the entire spectrum of crime including murder, serious non-fatal violence, rape, other sexual offences, fraud, dishonesty offences, drugs offences, duty evasion and illegal entry. His practice involves both defence and prosecution work. He has both the longstanding following of a significant number of excellent Defence Solicitors as well as being 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. He has been instructed as Leading Counsel in such cases within his field including murder, drugs offences, fraud and duty evasion. His presentation and communication skills enable him to master complex, multi-handed and sensitive cases, including those involving defendants or witnesses who are vulnerable.

Regulatory

His practice covers regulatory work. He is an appointed specialist advocate on the list of Specialist Regulatory Advocates in Health & Safety and Environmental Law (List B).

Public inquiries

His practice covers public inquiry work.

Commercial

His practice also covers civil work in the criminal courts (including closure orders, notification orders, stalking protection orders, sexual risk orders, sexual harm prevention orders, domestic violence protection orders and confiscation/POCA).

Recommendations

"A passionate, thorough barrister with an endless wealth of knowledge. An excellent communicator of complex issues to defendants and juries alike."

― Legal 500 [2022]

“Peter Alcock offers notable expertise in the prosecution and defence of a range of criminal cases."

― Chambers UK Bar Guide [2022]

“Highly experienced criminal advocate with very good knowledge of the law, which makes him the complete barrister.”

― Legal 500 [2021]

“A high- quality barrister.”

― Legal 500 [2020]

"A sophisticated advocate."

― Legal 500 [2019]
Leading Individual

Appointments

  • Appointed as Grade 4 CPS advocates panel (including the specialist rape panel).
  • Appointed to the List of Specialist Regulatory Advocates in Health & Safety and Environmental Law (List B).

Education

Peter Alcock 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.

Notable Cases

Regina v A-S (2021) Defending a man charged with facilitating illegal entry by inflatable boat across the Channel (in a ‘small boats’ trial). The boat contained 27 migrants. The central issues at trial were the extent of D’s acts and his state of mind.

Regina v L & B (2021) Defending, as Junior Counsel, a woman charged with murder. The central issue at trial for the defendant was participation. The issues for the co-defendant were participation and, in the alternative, diminished responsibility. The defendant required an intermediary.

Regina v S (2021) Prosecuting a man charged with possession with intent to supply class A drugs. The central issue at the trial was that the drugs had been planted on him and involved the assessment of evidence from police officers set against the background of circumstantial, bad character and expert evidence (including telephones).

Regina v J (2021) Defending a man charged with s.18 GBH on his own mother. The original issue was the denial of involvement set against a complex background of an extensive psychiatric history.

Regina v O, O & M (2021) Prosecuting three men involved in s.18 wounding.

Regina v M (2020) Prosecuting a man charged with attempted s.18 GBH of a police officer, by an attack with a corrosive substance.

Regina v I (2020) Defending a man charged with aggravated burglary set against an extensive psychiatric background.

Regina v G & A (2020) Defending a woman jointly charged with attempted kidnap. Her co-defendant was also charged in the same indictment with other offences, namely supplying drugs (heroin) and threatening with a bladed article.

Regina v C (2020) Prosecuting a man charged with s.18 wounding. The issue was identification. There was a complex factual background to the identifications that were relevant to the reliability of this evidence as well as significant bad character evidence.

Regina v C (2019) Prosecuting a man charged with attempted murder of his long-term friend. Over a period of time, the defendant poisoned his unaware long-term friend by putting drugs into her drinks. Events emerged when the victim became ill.

Regina v M & L (2019) Prosecuting two men charged with the importation of firearms.

Regina v K (2019) Defending a man charged with the importation of firearms.

Regina v D & R (2019) Prosecuting a man and woman charged with drug supply. After a guilty plea by R to all counts, the trial took place against D. The trial largely focussed on observation evidence, forensic evidence and the apportioning of blame onto R by D.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (2019) Representing a core participant at the inquiry (‘IICSA’) led by Professor Alexis Jay. IICSA was established to look at the extent to which institutions in England and Wales have discharged their duty to protect children from sexual abuse.

Regina v R (2019) Defending a man charged with a knife attack. The defendant had severe neurodevelopmental and other conditions, and thus there was significant expert/professional evidence as well adaptations to the trial process, including special measures.

Regina v S (2019) Prosecuting a man charged with multiple historic rapes, sexual and child cruelty offences. There was significant expert/professional evidence.

Regina v S, C, W & W (2018) Prosecuting four men involved in public disorder (with weapons). The incident was set against a background of alleged drug dealing.

Regina v S (2018) Prosecuting a man charged with the importation of class A drugs. The central issue was knowledge.

Regina v M (2018) Prosecuting a man charged with multiple historic serious sexual allegations. Abuse reported by V a number of years after offences took place.

Regina v G (2018) Prosecuting a man charged with multiple rapes committed over many years, spanning 1960s-1980s. Two complainants. Central issues: abuse; fabrication/collusion. There was voluminous third party material.

Regina v B (2018) Defending a man charged with 10 counts of serious sexual abuse. D was diagnosed with an extremely low IQ, learning difficulties and dyslexia. An intermediary was granted for his communication needs. Central issues: what D intended to communicate; fabrication.

R v S (2018) Prosecuting a man charged with historic sexual allegations dating back to the 1970’s. Two complainants.

Regina v F (2018) Defending a man charged with making large number of indecent images of children. Case had two specific/linked difficulties: D diagnosed with extremely low IQ, learning difficulties, autism and dyslexia; voluminous and complex disputed computer evidence as to saved images (including as to hard-drive location, creation dates, web searches, what physical acts user would need to do to create such images etc.) Central trial issues: whether D was on computer at image creation times and if so, whether creation of images was deliberate. Numerous expert reports.

Regina v C (2018) Defending a man charged with a campaign of multiple rapes (central issues: collusion/fabrication). Further counts reflected images/chat-logs on his computers (central issue: identity of user). 6 complainants.

Regina v M (2017) Defending a man charged along with 6 others with serious public disorder arising out of a business dispute between two local rival businesses. The nature of the case meant that there were defendants from both sides in the dock.

Regina v M & others (2017) Defending a man charged with a large-scale multi-million pound cannabis production conspiracy. The conspiracy involved warehouses in the south east of England and Norfolk. There was also the associated abstraction of electricity on a commercial scale. There were 17 other defendants.

Regina v H, W & W (2017) Prosecuting three men charged with numerous offences including s.18, s.16A firearms and possession of offensive weapons.

Regina v W (2017) Prosecuting a man charged with various offences including rape, false imprisonment and ABH. There were numerous common difficulties associated with such a case including bad character and previous (false) allegations, as well as a significant amount of issues, which arose from the use of social media during the investigation.

Regina v B (2017) Defending, as junior counsel, a man charged with murder. The cause of death was drowning. In the lead up to the trial the Crown indicated a preparedness to accept a plea to (gross negligence) manslaughter.

Regina v M (2016) Defending a man charged with sexual offences.

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

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

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

Regina v B (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 B 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 G & 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 S (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 P (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 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 L & 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 C (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 M (2013) Prosecuting a man charged with the attempted murder of a policeman. The issue was self defence.
Click here for news coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R v F & 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 E & 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 C (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 S & 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

27th January 2017

Gross Negligence Manslaughter Case: Simon Taylor Prosecutes, Oliver Saxby QC and Peter Alcock Defend

Sentence took place on Thursday in the case of Michael Bowditch, a 21 year old man charged in connection with the death of a...

23rd June 2015

Oliver Saxby QC and Peter Alcock secure rape campaign acquittals

A 21 year old man with learning difficulties has been cleared of allegations of rape and attempted rape. D was alleged to have committed...

23rd April 2015

Oliver Saxby QC and Peter Alcock secure attempted murder acquittal

A jury today acquitted Jordan Barringer of the offence of attempted murder after a 9-day trial. Barringer, a young man with serious learning difficulties...

10th March 2015

Acquittals in Kent Sex Trafficking Case

Following defence submissions led by Oliver Saxby QC and Peter Alcock on behalf of the first defendant Roman Bodnar at the close of the...

26th November 2014

Defendant acquitted in prison mutiny trial

Peter Alcock has secured the acquittal of the first defendant, Peter Gaffney, at Blackfriars Crown Court after a month long trial of 11 defendants...

5th October 2014

Nina Ellin and Peter Alcock successfully defend mother in child neglect case

Nina Ellin and Peter Alcock successfully defend a mother charged with neglecting her baby boy, who suffered severe head injuries and brain damage at the hands of...

9th July 2014

Murder Trial of Brian Sharp commences

Oliver Saxby QC and Peter Alcock (instructed by Kent Defence) began their defence of Brian Sharp, a 55 year old man charged with murdering...

Contact my clerks

Graham Colloff

Graham Colloff

First Junior Clerk
Michael Hearn

Michael Hearn

Second Junior Clerk
Conor Moughton

Conor Moughton

Junior Clerk