How did he try to avoid justice after stabbing a surgeon colleague

More than four years after stabbing his colleague, plastic surgeon Jonathan Peter Brooks found guilty attempted murder.

On Monday, he was sentenced to a 61 -year -old court in Loughborough at the 14 January 2021 attack on Graeme Perks in his aunt in Nottinghamshire, where a court in Loughborough could be easily deadly.

It can be reported that Brooks is no longer seen by the jury and refuses to interact with the hearing.

In a legal epic extending from his arrest to his conviction during a coronavirus locking, a judge summarized the “extraordinary” case, describing Brooks as a “extremely intelligent” man who used hunger strikes and took his lawyers tactically to the system to manipulate his lawyers to avoid justice.

Brooks was arrested on the day of the attack and It appeared in court four days later.

He wore camouflage equipment and went to his house, equipped with gasoline, matches, matches, lighter, knives and a lever, but insisted that all the items were “stored in the garage and purchased for innocent purposes”.

His trial was told that he had shredded the conservatory doors to spread gasoline to the ground floor of Perks’s house, and then stabbed him in the abdomen.

Brooks faced an online NHS disciplinary hearing that began on January 11, 2021.

The court heard that the Burns expert “hated”, who witnessed him in these disciplinary cases.

Initially, a hearing started in July 2022, but The jury was discharged The month after Brooks was taken to the hospital, osteoradioncrosis was experiencing – a medical complication of radiotherapy requiring surgery.

This was set on a long chain of legal delay on many occasions, where the hearings were listed, but Brooks refused to emerge, forced his case to influence other court hearings – lawyers and judges had to move around the workloads.

The hearing was listed “nine times less”, and the last time Brooks dismissed the law team with a day – Brooks rejected one or more lawyers for the fifth time.

Brooks also started a hunger strike 11 days before the hearing was planned.

Judge Edward Pepperall said it wasn’t new.

“In 2021, Dr Brooks has not identified less than eight than eight since he was arrested in 2021, when he used another self -harm to get some advantages, whether in hunger strikes or prison fields.” He said.

Brooks claimed that he was not medically suitable for trial, that there were no accommodation places to attend the hearing and that the hearing was unfair.

When another hearing had to be held, it remained unusual to act as his own legal adviser.

The dangers of the defendants representing them without legal support well -documentedAnd showing that he refused to be involved with Brooks – while he claimed that he preferred to die instead of wrong convictions – the court faced a trial of an unreformed defendant.

Combined with the hunger strike of Brooks, even if it was appropriate to the beginning of the hearing, it was likely to mean that the situation could be broken in the planned weeks and that a second attempt would not be concluded.

In short, yes.

The hunger strike meant that the defendant became increasingly weaker, which led the case to be moved to Loughborough because of the requirement of a new wheelchair, something that the original court could not host.

This year, on March 3, it was not appeared on the intermittent start date and asked the prosecution to continue the hearing in the absence of the defendant.

Judge Pepperall participated in a decision on whether it was fair to continue the hearing with the decision sent to the defendant on 6 March.

In the 30 -page document, he discussed the concerns that Brooks continued his hunger strike and determined how to allow any hearing would be fair.

“It’s not too late for [Brooks] To change the course and inform the court that he wanted to participate in the trial … He has already stopped the hunger strike and accepted all the reasonable treatment, so that he accepted a reasonable treatment to save enough health to put his case to the jury. “

Tracy Ayling KC pioneered the prosecution against Brooks, who continued while acting as a legal representation.

The situation warned the jury by the judge Pepperall not to take the absence of the defendant as a sign of guilt.

The evidence was later heard, but on March 11, the judge said that he received a letter from Brooks, where he was held in HMP Bedford and objected to the ongoing hearing.

A three -page response gave Brooks’s latest protests for a short time.

“Dr. Brooks cannot refuse to interact with both the court and his lawyers, and then complains that he is not properly updated for his case.” He said.

The hearing continued and on March 24, Stephen Leslie KC was brought to a cross -examination of Mr. Perks, a measure to balance the prosecution case.

On March 25, a new five-page decision was made to allow Brooks to appear from prison through a video-bond, even though he wanted to go.

The decision talked about the “sporadic” participation of Judge Brooks.

“In less than 13, he refused to go to court for a good reason, even when he had to appear only by the prison connection.” He said.

The judge, who deals with the behavior of the defendant, added: “Dr. Brooks deliberately ill to manipulate the court process and to prevent the proceedings. Such behavior was a voluntary decision of an informed medical man.”

Following the decision, the defendant continued to complain about the situation and his hearing and confirmed that he was suitable for participation after the doctors’ assessment, but with his own election, the prosecution case ended.

During a discussion on Brooks’s fitness during the hearing, Mrs. Ayling said that the prosecution team “predicted that such demands were made by the defendant.

“Still trying to postpone the hearing,” he said. He continued: “The court deliberately manipulates and voluntarily destroys itself.”

Brooks did not come to his own defense planned on March 27, but on April 1, he finally appeared, and addressed the hearing in the absence of the jury through the video-bonding of HMP Norwich, which he was recently transferred.

He requested a four -week postponement to prepare his case, but rejected a 48 -hour extension offer, drowned in tears because he said he could not accept the proposal to fulfill a late conversation from him.

When the jury was brought that day, he returned to the Brooks cell, and therefore there wasn’t once again when the judge summarized the evidence.

The Criminal Justice System emphasizes the importance of being a fair trial, but also appears to be a fair trial, so measures have been taken to ensure that Brooks refused to cooperate, but measures have been taken to monitor the necessary process.

For Brooks, a lawyer was brought to challenge witness evidence, and although legal decisions were not discussed in front of the jury to prevent their views, the legal debate could be reported after the hearing.

Ultimately, the courts have to give the defendants the opportunity to emerge, and if they refuse, even if they cause long delays, they must make the process still fair.

The Royal Prosecutor’s Office said that the hearing was “extremely unusual”.

“The lack of participation meant that a defendant was present and usually when it was represented, as well as simple and undisputed evidence could not be accepted.” He said.

“This meant that some witnesses had to give evidence to the jury and otherwise the expressions that would be treated as the agreed facts should be read exactly.”

A series of last penalties, including Kyle Clifford and Axel Rudakubana, saw that the defendants refused to emerge and as a result The Prime Minister promised to give power to the judges To make criminals appear on the quay.

Judge Pepperall said that Brooks would write to the governor of HMP Norwich, where he is currently held, and demanded him to attend the penal hearing on June 3.