OUR PEOPLE

V. Peter Fernando

Supervisor of Criminal Department

Practices: Criminal Defence

Peter Is an experienced solicitor who specialises in complex crime covering all areas including murder, large scale drugs, serious fraud, rape, firearms, arson, kidnapping and other serious offences.

Peter qualified in 1992 and has built a reputation of being a hardworking solicitor who leaves no stone unturned in preparation of his client’s case. Peter is very approachable and is liked by both his clients and peers.
Over the years in practice some of Peter’s notable cases are as follows:
B v British Army -Habeas Corpus -Peter successfully applied for the immediate release of a soldier from police custody awaiting transportation to barracks
Regina v X – Fitness to Plead - A Defendant was accused of sexual offences where there was no previous medical acknowledgment of a lack mental capacity. Psychiatric Reports were prepared by eminent psychiatrists, instructed by both the Crown and Peter. The Defendant did not plead and on a trial of issues, the jury found that the acts alleged had not been committed.
Regina v A - Manslaughter- Peter secured the acquittal of the Defendant after continuous proactive defence work.
Regina v I – Conspiracy to Supply a large quantity of Cannabis- The Defendant had been accused of conspiracy after an operation lasting many months. Acquitted of all counts charged.
R v C – Defendant accused of Endangering 4 passenger aircrafts by allegedly shining laser light at the planes. Peter instructed a laser expert and the Prosecution offered no evidence as the expert for the Prosecution could not disagree with the conclusion of the Laser expert
R v C (a minor) – Serious sexual offences including aiding and abetting offences of Rape of a female – Issue of Doli Incapax was raised
R v D – Trial for a number of Offences of Fraud- Acquittal secured after carefully examining a number of items of “unused” Prosecution material which revealed that the Prosecution witnesses were involved in improper activities resulting in major losses of revenue. Prosecution offered no evidence during the 3rd week of a trial due to last 4 weeks.