Southwell plastic surgeon Dr Peter Brooks handed two life sentences “sought to evade responsibility” says Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

A plastic surgeon has been given two life sentences for the attempted murder of a senior colleague, despite his attempts to to frustrate the legal process, the CPS have said.

Dr Peter Brooks, 61, formerly of Landseer Road, Southwell, faced trial at Loughborough Court in March and April 2025, and was found guilty of two counts of attempted murder — by stabbing and arson — against his Nottingham University Hospitals colleague, consultant Mr Graeme Perks.

He was also found guilty of attempted arson with intent to endanger life, and possession of a bladed article in a public place.

Yesterday (Monday), he was handed a life sentence, with a minimum term of 22 years, but will serve 17 years and 223 days with the reduction of time spent on remand, for each attempted murder charge.

He also received a six year prison sentence for attempted arson with intent, and 18 months imprisonment for possession of a bladed article — all are to be served concurrently.

Sam Shallow from the Crown Prosecution Service said that "justice has now caught up with Brooks” despite his attempted to evade justice.

She 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 colleague.

“Since committing these atrocious acts, Brooks has sought to evade responsibility. He has requested late adjournments, dispensed with his legal team, and used his health to avoid proper progress of the court proceedings. On each of the nine occasions the case has been listed at court, the prosecution team has been ready.

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

“This has been a long process for them, but I hope that finally seeing these proceedings coming to a close will help them in their recovery from this ordeal.”

Brooks had not been in attendance throughout his trial, had sacked his lawyers one day before it was due to start and instead elected to represent himself — but chose not to cooperate with the court to provide any evidence for the defence case.

It was the fifth time he had sacked one or more of his lawyers, causing the trial to be delayed on multiple occasions, and since February Brooks had maintained a hunger strike, refused to attend court, and claimed he would “rather die than be wrongly convicted”.

He appeared once via video link asking to postpone the trial, which was not permitted.

The CPS has provided detail and background into procedures in the unusual circumstances where defendants choose not to attend court.

All defendants have the right to defend themselves in court. However, after careful consideration, the CPS applied to proceed with the trial in Brooks’s absence.

Conducting the trial in the absence of a defendant presented additional challenges for the CPS. The prosecution had to prove all the offences to the jury.

While this is true of any criminal trial, the lack of participation meant that straightforward and non-controversial evidence could not be agreed as would usually happen when a defendant is present and represented. This meant that some witnesses had to give evidence to the jury and have statements read out in full that would otherwise have been treated as agreed facts.

In a case of attempted murder, the prosecution must prove that the defendant specifically intended to kill the victim. In this case we presented evidence of the lengths Brooks had gone to in ensuring his attack would be fatal.

He spread a large amount of petrol inside the house including up the stairs, which would have ensured a fire would be take hold quickly and make it impossible to escape. Even though Brooks was interrupted before he was able to start the fire, he had a backup plan to carry out the murder as evidenced by the knife he brought with him.

The prosecution presented evidence showing the severity of Mr Perks’s injury and heard evidence from the surgeon who treated him. The conclusion from this witness was that most patients who suffered this sort of attack would not have survived.

The prosecution does not have to prove a motive for an offence, but in this case the background to the attack seemed to provide the explanation. Having established the animosity Brooks held towards Mr Perks, the prosecution presented evidence from CCTV showing Brooks’s cycle journey to Mr Perks’s home.

The prosecution also provided evidence of the items used by Brooks in the attack, still stored with his bike in his garage and much of it containing DNA evidence that it had been used in the attack.