Peter Eguae was recruited into tenancy in February 2017, following pupillage in Chambers. Formerly an IT consultant (specialising in web/database development, cyber security and analysis), Peter consistently use these skills in his practice to quickly absorb, analyse and present high-volumes of complex digital information. With interests in philosophy, science and emerging technologies informs his interest in cybercrime and the impacts of technological developments on crime and the criminal law.
Experience at the Bar to-date:
R v MS & SS [Southwark] – Supported Sarah Forshaw QC in the successful SFO prosecution of a complex £80m Ponzi fraud. Conducted detailed analysis of several hundred thousand documents, messages and banking transactions and located the smoking gun’; a single text message.
R v DS [Southend] – The defendant faced benefit fraud charges totalling £35k. Analysis of the financial records led to a reduction of £15k in the amount the Crown accepted as being overpaid. Defendant received a suspended sentence.
R v D & O [Guilford] – Supported the successful prosecution of £2m ‘boiler room’ fraud.
R v KK, AM & Ors [St Albans] – ‘Joint-junior’, led by Pauline Thompson and Jeffrey Israel, for counsel of two defendants in multihanded conspiracy to rob; conducted analysis of extensive digital evidence.
R v MC [Southwark] – Conducted extensive case analysis and media research in a high-profile historic sex abuse matter. Designed and operated the resulting multimedi presentation in an abuse of process application by Sarah Forshaw QC before the Recorder of Westminster, HHJ McCreath.
R v CB [St. Albans] – Represented a defendant in a four-day, multi-handed ‘driving test impersonation’ fraud conspiracy trial. Conviction by a 10-2 majority.
R v TC [Medway] – Detailed cross-examination of key witness across 9,000 pages of digital evidence led to a successful submission of no case on two harassment charges.
R v LT [Maidstone] – Youth charged with being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs. The Crown’s case relied heavily on digital evidence. Crucial evidence excluded under s.78 PACE. Careful cross-examination of the Crown’s expert witness enabled a successful submission of no case to answer. Acquitted.
R v JM [Maidstone] – Successful appeal against conviction by a Magistrates’ Court on several charges of making indecent images of children.
R v CL [Westminster] – Successfully acted for Portuguese national subject to European Arrest Warrant over several hearings. Warrant rescinded.
R v MC [Basildon] – Represented defendant in £500k confiscation hearing, and agreed significant reductions to the benefit figure.
R v KH & Ors [CCC] – Acted as an intermediary for a defendant in the dock at the Central Criminal Court during a joint-enterprise murder handled by Jonathan Higgs QC and Danny Robinson. Defendant was the first acquitted as a result of R v Jogee.
R v GDG [Hammersmith] – The defendant was accused of racially-aggravated common assault after causing bruises and gashes to the complainant’s face during a 10-minute altercation on a bus. Careful cross-examination using the CCTV footage led the District Judge to completely disregard the complainant’s evidence and to accept self-defence. Acquitted.
R v SG [Blackfriars] – Jury swiftly acquitted defendant of possessing a bladed article.
R v VO [Snaresbrook] – Successful two-day appeal against conviction by a Magistrates’ Court in a two-handed assault that took place in a cemetery.
R v GE [Isleworth] – Committal for sentence. A persistent sexual offender avoided immediate custody following serious breaches of his SOPO, 18-month SSO and commission of further voyeurism and sexual assault offences.
R v VG [Canterbury] – s.18 ‘road rage’ stabbing; 3-year sentence after trial.
R v MO [Stratford] – Successfully defended a male charged with assault PC and public order offences arising from a lengthy altercation with officers on a busy high street. Cross-examination of the police witnesses using CCTV evidence led to his acquittal.
R v TB [Brent] – Defendant and unrepresented co-defendant charged with possessing offensive weapons after being arrested while wielding a baseball bat and golf club during their pursuit of another individual. Cross-examination of the unrepresented defendant was key to the outcome. Both acquitted.
R v TW [Croydon] – Defendant faced two charges of common assault. Successful application to exclude crucial evidence under s.78 PACE. The Crown subsequently offered no evidence and the defendant was acquitted.
R v SJ [St. Albans] – Suspected serial stalker accused of possession of a bladed article, being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose, and a section 4A public order offence. His acquittal of the public order offence was an important factor at sentence; he avoided immediate custody.
To view the privacy notice for Peter Eguae please click here.
Activities & Publications:
2015 - Article: “In defence of Jamaica’s youth: an appeal to equality” Jamaican Bar Association Journal, vol. 28, no. 1 2013 - ongoing. Youth Mentor (young offenders & care leavers) 2011 - ongoing. Speaker, Action for Children 2010 - Gray’s Inn Advocacy prize 2010 (1st place – awarded a wig, gown and wig tin)
Peter Eguae successful in appeal against sentence for a serious section 18 GBH, following a sustained attack to the victim’s face and neck with a broken glass bottle. Successfully argued that previously undiagnosed mental health issues reduced the appellant’s culpability. 14-years reduced to 10-years.
The judgement by the Lord Chief Justice, LJ Fulford and LJ Holroyde contains guidance about sentencing offenders with mental health conditions or disorders (PS, Abdi Dahir, CF v R  EWCA Crim 2286).
Instructed by Joe Davis of National Legal Service Solicitors.
Mr Martin was leading Counsel for D1 with Peter Eguae as his Junior. This case (Operation MANDEBRAS) related to a Home Office Investigation into a suspected Organised Crime Group facilitating persons into the UK, through abuse of the ‘common travel area’ with the Republic of Ireland.
Legal issues involved consideration of the underlying immigration offences relied upon by the Crown, Cross-admissibility as between the different counts and whether the Crown had fallen foul of indicting a single conspiracy when it appeared that there were multiple agreements at play.
Following extensive legal argument at the close of the Crown’s case (and the close of all the evidence) the indictment was left with only one substantive offence against the main defendants for the Jury to consider from what had been significantly wider allegations. As a result the Jury were discharged and a retrial was ordered for that one remaining Count against the 4 defendants.