Summary

Peter maintains a truly international practice. In addition to practising from Great James Street Chambers, he maintains Chambers in Sydney. He also provides advice on all areas of the common law in Germany as a member in the law firm Reinert, Lange & Ziebeil, which also has an office in New York. As Of Counsel to the law firm Houri & Ghalayini, Peter also provides advice in the Middle East region.

He is admitted to practise in the following jurisdictions:

New York (1999)
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (1999)
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (1999)
United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit (1999)
England & Wales (2001)
Queensland (2001)
New South Wales (2001)
High Court of Australia (2001)
New Zealand (2001)
Germany (Rechtsanwaltskammer für den Oberlandesgerichtsbezirk München) (as foreign lawyer) (2002)

His practice is pre-dominantly criminal. However, he also provides advice and appears in commercial matters and in related areas of the law.

Peter has developed a particular expertise in the law of Terrorism, having been briefed for the defence in every terrorism case in Sydney since 2005. As a result of that experience, he was invited in March 2006 by the International Commission of Jurists to give evidence to its Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights on the practical application of anti-terrorism laws in Australia. He was also invited by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism to provide submissions as part of the Special Rapporteur’s study of Australia's counter-terrorism legislation and measures. One of the cases in which Peter was involved, R v. Ul-Haque, led to an inquiry by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into the way in which the Australian Security services interrogate individuals, after the Supreme Court of New South Wales upheld a defence submission that large parts of the prosecution case should be excluded due to impropriety on the part of the security service. As part of that practice, Peter has also provided advice to a particular organisation on whether it could be considered a terrorist organisation within the terms of the legislation.

Peter regularly appears, both as junior and as sole counsel, in Courts of all levels.

Because of his background in computer engineering and information technology, Peter is also briefed for the express purpose of cross-examining computer forensic experts.

Notable Cases

R v. Lodhi

Junior for the defence in a terrorist case and subsequent appeal involving plans to attack Australian energy supplies and military installations. More >

R v. Ul-Haque

Junior for the defence in a terrorist training case. More >

R v. Gilham

Junior for the defence in a case involving novel issues of double jeopardy. Because of the issues raised, the Court of Criminal Appeal took the unusual step of sitting with a Bench of 5 judges. More >

R v. Khazal

Junior for the defence in a case involving the compilation of a so-called terrorist manual. Presently instructed in the appeal (on-going). More > More >

R v. Cheikho

Junior for the defence and appeal in the largest terrorist case in Australian history, alleging a conspiracy to do acts in preparation for various acts of terrorism in the Sydney area (on-going). More >

El-Jalkh v. R

Successful appeal against conviction for conspiracy to import ecstasy.

Darwiche v. R

Presently instructed as sole counsel for the reputed head of a crime family on an appeal against convictions for murder and related shootings as part of a dispute between two rival crime families (on-going). More >

Re JK

Advising British national who has been detained in Thailand and whose extradition is sought by Australia in connection with alleged conspiracies to import $ 100’s millions worth of drugs and pre-cursors into Australia, allegedly with the assistance of one of the highest ranking police officers in Australia (on-going).

R. v. AG

Acting on behalf of an accused charged with a series of home invasions, kidnappings and robberies, specifically targeting Sydney businessmen (on-going). More >

BUSB v. R; BUSB v. Director-General of Security

Appearing as leading counsel for an accused charged with attempted murder. The matter is presently listed jointly before the Court of Appeal and Court of Criminal Appeal in a challenge to the ability of the trial court to make orders precluding the accused from seeing witnesses employed by the security service. Because of the Constitutional significance of the arguments, the Courts have listed the matter before a Bench of 5 judges, and the matter has attracted the intervention of the New South Wales Attorney-General (on-going). More >

Clark v. The Queen

Presently instructed on behalf of a person convicted of murder in respect of an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia (on-going). More >

^ Back to Top