Building the case: How police and prosecutors brought Southwell surgeon Dr Peter Brooks to justice for attempted murder in his absence from his trial

The trial of Dr Peter Brooks has been described as “extremely unusual” by prosecutors, who had to bring him to justice in his absence.

Plastic surgeon Brooks, 61, formerly of Landseer Road, Southwell, was today (April 7) found guilty of two counts of attempted murder — by arson and stabbing — against his former colleague Mr Graeme Perks — as well as attempted arson with intent to endanger life, and possession of a bladed article.

Following the verdict, head of the CPS East Midlands Complex Casework Unit, Rachael Dean, 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 boss.

“Since committing these atrocious acts, Brooks has sought to evade responsibility by any means. Today, justice has caught up with him and he must now face the consequences of his criminal actions.

“His victim was fortunate to escape with his life and his whole family were in danger from Brooks’ inexplicable actions. Despite the physical and emotional trauma they have endured, they have returned to tell the court their story.

“This has been a long process and I hope that today’s conviction will help with their continued recovery from this ordeal.”

Brooks did not attend his trial, and chose not to be represented by a lawyer. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) applied to proceed with the trial in Brooks’ absence.

Instead of engaging, Brooks maintained a hunger strike ‘in protest’ of proceedings. His lack of participation was considered voluntary and he was found to have capacity to make this decision.

Conducting a trial in his absence, the CPS assert, presented additional challenges as “straightforward and non-controversial evidence” would usually be treated as agreed facts when in the presence of representatives for both the prosecution and defence.

Instead, some witnesses had to give evidence to the jury and have statements read out in full.

In a case of attempted murder, the prosecution must also prove that the defendant specifically intended to kill the victim.

To support this intent, the prosecution presented evidence of the lengths Brooks had gone to to ensure his attack would be fatal — including spreading petrol up the staircase to prevent the family’s escape, and bringing a knife to the house as a “backup plan”.

Additionally, while the prosecution does not have to prove a motive, in this case it was able to provide background to the attack — in Mr Perks’ involvement with Brooks’ disciplinary hearing at Nottingham University Hospitals — which offered an explanation for Brooks’ actions and his “animosity” towards his victim.

The prosecution also provided evidence of the items — a container of petrol, matches, and a lighter — used by Brooks in the attack, still stored with his bike in his garage and much of it containing DNA evidence to support its use in the crime.

These items were key to the police investigation which linked Brooks to the offence, and detectives also used CCTV footage to ascertain that he left his home shortly before the attack and returned after carrying it out.

Brooks had been found asleep in a Southwell garden with hypothermia and cuts to his hand several hours after the attack, and was taken to Kings Mill Hospital by ambulance.

He was arrested in hospital and later taken into custody, and during a subsequent interview with detectives he declined to answer any of the questions posed to him — meaning the case relied on forensic evidence to link him to the scene.

Detective Inspector Matt Scott, of Nottinghamshire Police, said: “This was a vicious and calculating attack that very nearly cost a wholly innocent man his life.

“Our contention has always been that Brooks set off that morning with a very clear intention in mind — to fatally injure his victim.

“I am pleased that — having heard all the available evidence — the trial jury agreed and hope that today’s verdict provides at least some degree of comfort to the victim and his family.

“Over the last four years he and his family have been through an extremely distressing ordeal and I would like to thank them for the enormous courage and dignity they have shown throughout this process.”