An exceptional lawyer with a brilliant mind
Pete Weatherby KC is currently leading the team representing 7,000 bereaved families from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at the UK Covid Inquiry, and a number of groups and individuals at the Undercover Policing Inquiry.
In recent years he led the team representing 22 of the Hillsborough families at the fresh inquests which corrected one of the worst miscarriages of justices in UK legal history (2014-16). Pete has also represented 80 of the bereaved families, survivors and residents of the Grenfell fire (2018-19), 7 bereaved families of the Manchester Arena bombing outrage (2017-2024), and the partner of Anthony Grainger at Public Inquiries.
Pete is an authority on Article 2 (‘right to life’). He has given evidence to two Parliamentary Committees and the JUSTICE.org Working Group on related issues. He was a co-author of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill 2017, known as ‘Hillsborough Law’, and is currently liaising with Ministers regarding incorporating the 2017 Bill into a new ‘Duty of Candour’ Bill to which the Government has committed. If enacted, the new provisions will deliver swifter and more efficient justice for victims and bereaved families, drive a culture change in public life to prevent cover-ups, and increase confidence in the rule of law. He has recently drafted amendments to the Football Governance Bill, and has advised internationally regarding draft legislation (including in the Maldives).
Pete appeared in the leading domestic A2 case of Middleton, at all stages from inquest to House of Lords, which led to profound changes to the way in which UK jurisdictions investigate unnatural and controversial deaths where state bodies are involved. Middleton remains one of the most significant domestic human rights cases since the Human Rights Act came into force.
During 2022/3 Pete was a member of the International Panel of the UEFA Review into the Events Surrounding the 2022 Champions League Final. Chaired by the former Sports Minister of Portugal, Tiago Brandão Rodrigues, and including leading experts from across Europe: the Netherlands, France, Portugal, England and Scotland. Pete played a central role in devising the process, conducting the investigations in Switzerland, France, and England, and drafting the Panel’s report and recommendations.
Internationally, Pete has appeared in a number of Strasbourg cases, including before the Grand Chamber. Three such cases have led to significant changes to UK law: Ezeh and Connors v UK (right to a fair trial), James v UK (arbitrary detention regarding IPP sentences), and Vinter v UK (whole life tariffs).
Pete has advised on Article 2 processes in different jurisdictions (including in Scotland, Malta, Indonesia, and Ireland). He has appeared in the Supreme Court of Mauritius on criminal and penal matters, and he represented the author of a complaint before the UN HRC concerning the Mauritius biometric ID Card scheme: Madhewoo v Mauritius CCPR/C/131/D/3163/2018 (24 March 2021).
Pete represented Michael Shields with respect to the reopening of Bulgarian criminal appeal processes concerning his wrongful conviction for attempted murder, and before the European Parliament Petitions Committee. Subsequently, Pete challenged the UK Government’s refusal to consider a pardon: Shields, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] QB 150, and eventually Mr Shields became the only person ever pardoned in relation to a foreign conviction.
Pete has been an Executive Committee member of the Bar Human Rights Committee for well over a decade, and has conducted human rights missions and trial observations to Bahrain, Turkiye, Lebanon, and Kuwait. Pete’s reports on freedom of expression and press freedom, and fair trial rights have been cited in extradition and asylum cases in a number of jurisdictions. He has contributed to amicus submissions and expressions of concern relating to many other countries including UAE, Kashmir, and Israel/OPT, and death penalty cases in Bahrain and the USA.
Domestically, Pete represented Reggie Kray in respect of parole applications, and has appeared in a number of historic ‘miscarriage of justice’ criminal appeals including that of Robert Brown whose murder conviction was quashed after he had spent 26 years in jail. Pete has specialised in sentencing appeals, in particular relating to life sentences, calculation and remand periods, and to cases involving the interface with mental health disposals. Pete has appeared in numerous first instance criminal cases from public order and protest cases, to murder, terrorism and serious fraud.
Pete has specialised in public law cases, particularly in penal, criminal, miscarriage of justice, inquest and inquiry, extradition, and terrorism law, appearing at all levels including the Supreme Court. He has often been instructed in complex statutory interpretation and human rights cases.
Pete was a founding member of Garden Court North and he is a door tenant at Garden Court Chambers in London. Pete is a Trustee of the charity INQUEST, and a Director of Hillsborough Law Now.
Pete has advised ministers, shadow ministers, and other public figures (including Mayors), regarding a number of high profile cases and matters of law reform particularly with regard to inquiries and inquests, the need for a statutory ‘duty of candour’, on access to justice and the negative effect of legal aid cuts, regarding prison and sentencing law (notably with regard to IPP and other indeterminate sentences), and with respect to discrimination and the operation of ‘joint enterprise’. Together with bereaved families, Pete met with leaders from across the political spectrums in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland to ensure that devolved issues were sufficiently covered by the Covid Inquiry.
Pete is ranked in Band 1 by Chambers and Partners and as a Tier 1 Leading Silk by The Legal 500 for Administrative and public law (including civil liberties) and Inquests and Inquiries.
In addition to leading the team representing 22 of the bereaved Hillsborough families at the new inquests, Pete represented the family of Jessie James, a 15 year old brutally gunned down in Manchester in 2006, and has appeared for families at many inquests and public inquiries into custody deaths. Pete appeared in the Abergele cyclists inquest (2007) (four members of the North Wales Cycle Club killed by a skidding car). He is often instructed by Trade Unions in this area of work, particularly in work related deaths.
Pete undertakes judicial review of inquest decisions and rulings, and appeared for the family at the Public Inquiry into the death of Bernard “Sonny” Lodge (a prisoner who died at HMP Manchester in 1998), set up following a defective Inquest, and which reported in late 2009. Pete also appeared at all stages of the Middleton case; the landmark case relating to Article 2 and inquest jury verdicts which resulted in substantial changes to the law relating to narrative conclusions and the accountability of state authorities and officials.
Pete represented the partner of Anthony Grainger, an unarmed man fatally shot in a botched police operation, at the Public Inquiry into his death, and he represented 80 victims of the Grenfell disaster during phase one of the Inquiry. More recently he appeared for bereaved victims of the Manchester Arena bombing outrage at the inquests and he currently leads the team representing the Covid Bereaved Families for Justice group in the UK Covid-19 Inquiry.
Pete was one of the lawyers who drafted the Public Authorities (Accountability) Bill 2017 (‘Hillsborough Law’), and is involved in the campaign of the families to get it enacted. The Bill institutes a legal duty of candour and provides a ‘toolbox’ for victims to require public authorities and officials to be frank and transparent and accept responsibility for wrongdoing. It empowers whistleblowers and it provides for a level playing field between authorities and institutions on the one hand and victims on the other in terms of public funding for legal representation.
Pete is a Trustee of INQUEST, the charity which provides support for the bereaved in cases involving death in state custody or where state officials are involved. He also writes and delivers seminars and webinars relating to Article 2, inquests and inquiries.
At first instance, Pete appears predominantly in murder, ‘gangland’, ‘terrorism’ and serious fraud trials. Pete is particularly interested in cases involving civil liberties, human rights, political, prison law, extradition, mental health, and international issues. He has appeared in criminal cases in other jurisdictions, including Mauritius.
Pete has a long-standing appellate practice including cases involving miscarriages of justice, and cases relating to the legality of sentences, in particular IPP and whole life terms. Pete has successfully challenged aspects of the IPP regime, and whole life tariffs, in the European Court of Human Rights.
Pete appeared in R v Robert Brown [2002] (conviction for murder quashed after RB had served 26 years), and represented Michael Shields (the only person ever to receive a pardon for a foreign conviction). He has been involved in a number of Criminal Cases Review Commission referrals, and challenges to their decisions. Pete recently appeared in a high profile judicial review of an adverse CCRC decision relating to a ‘joint enterprise’ case. Pete also recently appeared in the Supreme Court in a case involving interest accruing on unpaid confiscation orders.
Pete has a High Court criminal practice including appeals by way of case stated and judicial review.
Pete specialises in bringing judicial reviews in all of his practice areas, particularly prison law, inquests, public inquiries and crime. His judicial review practice has included appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, and applications to the European Court of human Rights, including the Grand Chamber.
Pete has appeared and advised in a number of criminal, prison and human rights cases in Mauritius, and is currently pursuing a case to the UN Human Rights Committee challenging the Mauritius biometric ID card system, under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Pete has worked in association with the Chambers of Sanjeev Teeluckdharry in Port Louis, Mauritius and in particular Erickson Mooneapillay of counsel.
Pete has also appeared or advised in matters relating to Bulgaria, Japan, Spain, and the Maldives.
Pete is on the Executive of the Bar Human Rights Committee, which undertakes international pro bono human rights work primarily with respect to the rule of law and the protection of judges, lawyers, human rights defenders and journalists. Pete has been particularly involved with BHRC projects regarding Turkey, Kuwait and Bahrain and has published a number of reports through the BHRC website: http://www.barhumanrights.org.uk, and articles in the wider media. Pete has also undertaken pro bono work relating to the US, Kashmir, the UAE, and elsewhere.
Pete has appeared and advised in a number of criminal, prison and human rights cases in Mauritius, and is currently pursuing a case to the UN Human Rights Committee challenging the Mauritius biometric ID card system, under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Pete has worked in association with the Chambers of Sanjeev Teeluckdharry in Port Louis, Mauritius and in particular Erickson Mooneapillay of counsel.
Pete has also appeared or advised in matters relating to Bulgaria, Japan, Spain, and the Maldives.
Pete is on the Executive of the Bar Human Rights Committee, which undertakes international pro bono human rights work primarily with respect to the rule of law and the protection of judges, lawyers, human rights defenders and journalists. Pete has been particularly involved with BHRC projects regarding Turkey, Kuwait and Bahrain and has published a number of reports through the BHRC website: http://www.barhumanrights.org.uk, and articles in the wider media. Pete has also undertaken pro bono work relating to the US, Kashmir, the UAE, and elsewhere.
Pete has appeared and advised in a number of criminal, prison and human rights cases in Mauritius, and is currently pursuing a case to the UN Human Rights Committee challenging the Mauritius biometric ID card system, under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Pete has worked in association with the Chambers of Sanjeev Teeluckdharry in Port Louis, Mauritius and in particular Erickson Mooneapillay of counsel.
Pete has also appeared or advised in matters relating to Bulgaria, Japan, Spain, and the Maldives.
Pete is on the Executive of the Bar Human Rights Committee, which undertakes international pro bono human rights work primarily with respect to the rule of law and the protection of judges, lawyers, human rights defenders and journalists. Pete has been particularly involved with BHRC projects regarding Turkey, Kuwait and Bahrain and has published a number of reports through the BHRC website: http://www.barhumanrights.org.uk, and articles in the wider media. Pete has also undertaken pro bono work relating to the US, Kashmir, the UAE, and elsewhere.
Pete has considerable experience in claims against the Ministry of Justice and the police for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, assault, negligence and human rights torts. He has particular experience of cases involving civil liberties, prison, political, extradition, ‘terrorism’, mental health, disaster and human rights issues.
Pete has undertaken a series of judicial reviews and civil actions, instructed by Trade Unions, relating to the retention of DNA, fingerprints, photographs and PNC records of wrongly arrested suspects; often teachers and fire fighters against whom workplace allegations are made.
Pete has regularly dealt with judicial review claims regarding release dates, parole, adjudications, and prison conditions. He has represented claimants in a number of leading release-date, false imprisonment, adjudication and IPP cases. He also undertakes civil actions against the Ministry of Justice, amongst other actions, for breach of Article (A) 5, assault, negligence and misfeasance. Pete also does some first instance prison work including complex parole cases. He has appeared at all levels in prison law: Adjudications, parole panels, High Court, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and Supreme Court, and the European Court of Human Rights and Grand Chamber (GC). Pete has appeared in three leading prison cases in Strasbourg: Ezeh and Connors v UK [2004] 39 EHRR 1 (GC held that having Governors as adjudication judges was a breach of A6 where additional detention was a possibility), James v UK [2013] 56 EHRR 12 (ruled that IPP sentences were a breach of A5 where prisoners could not progress), and Vinter, Bamber and Moore v UK [2016] 63 EHRR 1 (GC held that Whole Life tariffs breached A3 unless there was a possibility of release).
UK Covid Inquiry (2020-present)
Pete leads the team for CBFFJ UK, which represents the main group of 7,000 bereaved families from England, N Ireland, Wales and Scotland. The team initially pressed Government for the institution of the Inquiry, initiating two JRs before it was established, and Pete met with political leaders from Westminster and each Devolved Administration to press for devolved inquiries.
Hillsborough Inquests: (2009-present)
Pete led the team representing 22 of the bereaved families at the 2014-2016 inquests at which the jury found that the 96 (which later became 97) were unlawfully killed, thereby righting one of the worst miscarriages of justice in UK legal history. Pete represented families at the JR which facilitated the fresh inquests: AG v HMC for South Yorkshire [2012] EWHC 3783 Admin, and he was part of the team which settled civil claims relating to the cover-up. Pete was one of the drafters of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill 2017 (“Hillsborough Law”), and he continues to play a leading role in consulting with Ministers and officials regarding the forthcoming new Bill to establish a legal duty of candour.
UEFA Independent Review: 2022 UEFA Champions League Final (2022-23)
Pete was a member of the international panel which inquired into the near disaster which occurred at the UCLF22 in Paris. The Panel was chaired by Tiago Brandão Rodrigues, former Sports Minister of Portugal, and included policing experts from the Netherlands and Scotland, a Professor of Behavioural Science, Football industry and Supporter representatives. Pete was the only lawyer on the Panel and he took a central role in designing the process, conducting the investigations (including live evidence in France, Switzerland, and England), reaching consensus on conclusions and recommendations, and writing the Report. The whole Inquiry was concluded in about 8 months. It adopted a fair and transparent process, which required candour and proactive cooperation from all stakeholders. It reached robust and critical conclusions primarily that UEFA had itself failed to ensure that the plan for the UCLF22 event was safe, and that French police and Ministers had failed to discharge their responsibilities, and that there had been an unjustified attempt to shift blame onto supporters. UEFA have publicly accepted the Report and have asserted that they have actioned all its recommendations.
Yousef Makki Inquest (2020-23)
Pete represented the family at the inquest, the JR which quashed its failure to reach conclusions (on Wednesbury grounds): R (Makki) v HM Senior Coroner for S Manchester [2023] EWHC 80 (Admin), and at the fresh inquest which concluded that YM had been unlawfully killed.
Undercover Policing Inquiry (2018-present)
Pete represents a variety of groups and individuals who were the subjects of undercover police infiltration, over a period of 50 years.
Manchester Arena Inquiry (2017-2024)
Pete represented 7 families bereaved by the bombing outrage and over 400 bereaved families and survivors in claims against MI5 pursuant to A2.
Madhewoo v Mauritius CCPR/C/131/D/3163/2018 (24 March 2021)
Pete represented Dr Madhewoo, the author of a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee pursuant to A17 (privacy) of the ICCPR, regarding biometric data included on ID cards.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry (2017-2019)
Pete led the team representing 80 bereaved, survivors and residents during the first phase of the Inquiry into the devastating fire which killed 72 people.
Anthony Grainger Inquiry (2016-2019)
Pete represented the partner of Anthony Grainger who was shot dead by police during a botched armed operation. The Inquiry concluded that there had been a breach of A2 and that there were serious candour failures in the evidence of senior police officers.
Jordan Cunliffe v CCRC [2019] EWHC 926 (Admin):
Pete represented the claimant in a judicial review of a CCRC adverse decision in a ‘joint enterprise’ murder case.
R (Gibson) v SSJ [2018] 1 WLR 629:
Supreme Court: statutory interpretation: calculation of interest accrued on unpaid Confiscation Orders.
Vinter, Bamber and Moore v UK [2016] 63 EHRR 1
ECtHR Grand Chamber: Whole Life tariffs breach A3 unless there is a possibility of release.
R (Kaiyam) v SSJ [2015] 2 WLR 76:
Supreme Court: following James v UK re indeterminate sentence prisoners.
James v UK [2013] 56 EHRR 12
ECtHR ruled that IPP sentences were in breach of A5 where prisoners could not progress due to systemic deficiencies. Pete represented the Applicant at his Parole Board hearing and at each domestic stage including the Supreme Court: R (James) Secretary of State for Justice [2010] 1 AC 553.
Elam, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] 1 WLR 2722
CoA: Sentence calculation – licence expiry dates.
Richardson v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2011] 2 CrAppR 1
Requirement of necessity for arrest to be lawful.
R (Radislav Krstic) v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWHC 2125 (Admin)
Refusal to re-categorise Category A prisoner convicted of crimes against humanity quashed.
R (Noone) v (1) the Governor of HMP Drake Hall, (2) Secretary of State for Justice [2010] 1 WLR 1743:
Supreme Court: Prisoner release date calculations – statutory interpretation.
R (JF and Thompson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 1 AC 331
Supreme Court: Declaration of Incompatibility – Sex Offender Notification and A8.
Round and Dunn v R [2010] 2 CrAppR(S) 45
Consecutive sentences and HDC.
R (John O’Sullivan) v Parole Board [2009] EWHC 2730 (Admin)
Parole Board decision quashed for lack of reasons and irrationality.
Jessie James inquest (2007-2010)
High profile inquest into 15-year-old boy shot dead in a case of mistaken identity, where police initially suggested it was a gangland killing.
Shields, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] QB 150
Pete represented Mr Shields, wrongly convicted of attempted murder in Bulgaria (the perpetrator subsequently confessed). Involved repatriation– Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons 1983, and subsequently the power to pardon. Mr Shields became the only person to be pardoned in the UK in respect of a foreign conviction.
Bernard “Sonny” Lodge Inquiry (2009)
Public Inquiry into death at HMP Manchester in 1998. Pete represented the family.
R (on the application of Paul Lowe) v the Governor of HMP Liverpool [2008] EWHC 2167 (Admin)
Established that a prisoner should not be adversely re-categorised without significant change in risk.
Melissa Piggott v DPP [2008] RTR 16
The meaning of “reasonable excuse” where driver failed to provide specimen.
Abergele Cycling Club disaster inquest (2007)
Pete represented a Council Manager under investigation for manslaughter relating to the gritting of a road where 4 cyclists were killed by a skidding car. The Coroner concluded that the police had failed to communicate the state of the road and earlier skidding reports to the Council.
R v Caines and R v Roberts [2007] 1 WLR 1109
Case regarding credit for positive rehabilitative progress in prison.
R (Lunn) v Governor of HMP Moorland [2006] 1 WLR 2870
Cases defining the meaning of being “unlawfully at large”.
Rose v Director of Public Prosecution [2006] 1 WLR 2626
Outraging public decency, and A8 regarding homeless person engaging in sexual act: appeal against conviction quashed.
R (R) v Manchester City Youth Court (2006) CrimLR 849
Clarification of Mode of Trial provisions for youths.
Sierny v DPP [2006] EWHC 716 (Admin)
Case Stated Appeal against conviction for breach of ASBO on basis of vagueness of grounds.
R (Middleton) v HMC Coroner for W Somerset [2004] 2 AC 182
Mr Middleton had killed himself in prison in circumstances where the authorities failed to act on clear concerns for his wellbeing. Pete represented the family at the inquest and at all stages up to and including the House of Lords. The case related to the discharge of the state’s investigative obligation under A2, which widened the scope for inquiry into deaths where the state was involved, and subsequently led to statutory change and (limited) funding for representation for bereaved families. Middleton has had a profound effect on A2 inquests and inquiries, including high profile cases such as Hillsborough, Grenfell, and Covid.
Ezeh and Connors v UK [2004] 39 EHRR 1
ECtHR Grand Chamber held that prison adjudications involving additional detention were in breach of A6 given that the decision-maker was a Governor and therefore was not sufficiently independent. The decision led to statutory change, the introduction of Independent Adjudicators, and the quashing of earlier sentences.
R v Stocker [2003] 2 CrAppR(S) 54, CA, and R v Bingham [2004]
Cases on the relationship between remand time and administrative recall.
R v Shane Smith [2003] EWCA Crim 927
Miscarriage of Justice, CCRC referral: appeal allowed on basis of false confession, conviction quashed.
R v Robert Brown [2002] EWCA Crim 2804
Miscarriage of justice case: Murder conviction quashed after Mr Brown had spent 26 years in prison protesting his innocence.
R v Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No 2) [2001] 2 AC 19
HoL: Leading false imprisonment case.
R v Gov of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No1) [1997] 2 WLR 236
Statutory construction regarding the calculation of time served on remand. Outcome led to many sentences being recalculated and prisoners being released
Pete’s Privacy Notice may be viewed by clicking here.
Our mailing list is dedicated to professionals with an interest in our work.
