7 Harrington Street

Crime, civil.

Call: 1980

CPS Fraud Panel Level 3

Practice Areas

Civil

• Personal Injury
• Professional Discipline & negligence
• Human Rights

Crime

• All aspects of Criminal Law Ð Defence & Prosecution
• Actions against Police
• Fraud

Areas of Practice

Arthur Gibson is experienced in all forms of Criminal Law and has practised at all levels. He was junior counsel in R v Dietschmann (House of Lords) the leading authority in relation to drunkenness and diminished responsibility. He has been junior counsel for the defence in a number of high profile trials including R v Morrison (historical murder). R v Claridge (large scale child abuse featured extensively in the BBC Newsnight programme).

He successfully represented a Defendant in Operation Motor a £18 million carousel fraud. In recent years he has developed an extensive prosecution practice and has led for the Crown in a number of cases Ð Operation Saffron, Snare, Swan & Tiger. He has recently been awarded a commendation by the Chief Constable of Cumbria in relation to the prosecution of financial crime. He is experienced in regulatory crime with particular emphasis on regulations in the agricultural industry.

In addition to criminal law Arthur Gibson is also experienced in civil action involving assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

He is a qualified prosectuor in relation to sexual offences and is often instructed in cases involving particular difficult issues arising for example, rape within arranged marriage in the Muslim community, and offences within members of foreign communities.

He was one of the first counsel to be instructed on behalf of both prosecution and defence during the piloting of s28 (pre-trial cross-examination of victims).

Following the enactment of the POCA he has developed a practice in relation to confiscation orders, being regularly instructed to advise on behalf of the defence and prosecution in relaiton to confiscation proceedings.

He is presently instructed in consolidated appeals before the Court of Appeal in relation to further issues requiring resolution following the Supreme Court decisions in Waya and Ahmad.