Southwell plastic surgeon Dr Peter Brooks had intent to kill colleague Mr Graeme Perks, attempted murder trial told as prosecutor’s closing statement counters self-defence argument

The suggestion a surgeon accused of attempted murder stabbed his colleague in self defence has been branded as “fantastical” by prosecutors.

Prosecution counsel Ms Tracy Ayling KC today (April 1) delivered a closing speech in the trial of Dr Peter Brooks, which countered the self defence argument presented by the defendant’s court appointed advocate Mr Stephen Leslie KC earlier in the trial.

Dr Brooks, formerly of Landseer Road, Southwell, is accused of is accused of two counts of attempted murder — by stabbing and arson — against his Nottingham University Hospitals colleague, consultant Mr Graeme Perks, following an incident at Mr Perks’ Halam Hill home in 2021.

He faces additional charges of attempted arson with intent to endanger life, and possession of a bladed article.

Mr Brooks is not in attendance, and has chosen not to be represented by a lawyer at his trial, nor deliver any evidence for the defence.

The self defence argument was raised in relation to the charge of attempted murder by stabbing.

Mr Perks suffered a serious stab wound at his home in the early hours of January 14, 2021, which the court previously heard left him with just a 5% chance of survival.

During cross examination of Mr Perks, Mr Leslie suggested Mr Perks himself had wielded the crowbar found at the scene, which had his blood on it and a finger mark in this blood stain. It also had a smaller amount of Dr Brooks’ DNA present.

Mr Perks — who admitted he had suffered from periods of memory loss during the incident and his recovery — said he had never before seen the blue crowbar and had no recollection of handling it.

He also had no recollection of the knife found bloodied at the scene, which also had his blood and Dr Brooks’ DNA present.

Ms Ayling described the self defence argument as “conjecture, speculation, a guess”, and questioned why when Mr Perks initially believed the figure in his home to be his son Henry, he would try to attack him with a crowbar.

She suggested Dr Brooks had brought the “large, very sharp” knife to the Perks’ home with him — as both Mr Perks’ wife and adult son also didn’t recognise the knife as belonging to the family — and this was done with an intent to kill Mr Perks which she said had been formed before he even left his Southwell home.

She added: “We know it must have been on his person at [Mr Perks’ home], as he had it readily available to stab him.”

She described his actions as deliberate, and as him having been the aggressor throughout.

Judge Mr Pepperall, who is overseeing proceedings in the Loughborough court, also began summing up the evidence for the jury, and is due to conclude doing so tomorrow before they retire to reach a verdict.

He described the absence of a defence lawyer and Dr Brooks as “highly unusual” but told the jury it was not evidence against the defendant, and the lack of defence evidence did not mean they had to accept all of the prosecution evidence.

He highlighted Dr Brooks’ character, in that he has no previous convictions and has spent his working life as a doctor, explaining it is not indicative of his lack of guilt, but may make it “less likely” he was guilty of the serious charges.

The trial continues.