A plastic surgeon stabbed a fellow doctor he “hated” after a failed plot to set his house on fire, a court heard.
Prosecutors alleged that Jonathan Peter Brooks, 61, a consultant surgeon specialising in burns and plastics, wanted Graeme Perks “out of the way” as he was a witness in ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him, which had begun three days before the incident on Jan 14 2021.
Jurors were told that Mr Brooks cycled to Mr Perks’s house in Halam Hill, Nottinghamshire, in the early hours of the morning, before breaking in wearing camouflage clothing and armed with a crowbar, petrol, matches and a knife.
Tracy Ayling KC, prosecuting, told the Loughborough courthouse that Brooks doused the ground floor of the property in petrol after breaking in through a conservatory door.
She said: “Mr Perks was asleep in bed and heard a loud noise in the early hours of the morning. He got out of bed… and ran downstairs and into the drawing room. Mr Perks said to police afterwards that he thought he smelt something unusual and his feet felt a bit damp.”
Graeme Perks required three operations and spent time in critical care but survived his injuries, jurors were told – BAPRAS/PA
Ms Ayling added that the victim thought a figure in his home was his son but then “felt a blow to his body” and put his hands to his abdomen where it was “warm and sticky and [he] felt something poking out”.
She continued: “He decided he must have been stabbed, he did not remember anything after that. His family heard screaming and went downstairs. Because of quick action and amazing surgical skill, Graeme Perks lives.”
Jurors were told that the doctor required three operations before he was moved to critical care and remained in a medically induced coma after sustaining incision wounds to his liver and pancreas.
Mr Brooks went on trial in his absence without legal representation and has been charged with two counts of attempted murder, attempted arson with intent to endanger life and possession of a knife in a public place.
Prosecutors allege Jonathan Peter Brooks cycled to Graeme Perks’s house in Halam Hill, Nottinghamshire, armed with a crowbar, petrol, matches and a knife – Tom Maddick / SWNS
Opening the case on Monday, Ms Ayling told the court: “His [Mr Brooks’s] intention was, say the Crown, to break into Mr Perks’s house, set fire to it and, if necessary, stab Mr Perks.
“In short, the Crown say he intended to kill Mr Perks by either of those means – the use of fire or the use of the knife.”
The court heard that Mr Brooks was the subject of disciplinary proceedings at work and statements from Mr Perks had “formed part of the evidence”.
The jury was told that Mr Brooks could have been facing dismissal from Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and wanted to get Mr Perks “out of the way”.
Ms Ayling said: “The prosecution does not have to prove a motive for any crime, however it is clear that the defendant hated Graeme Perks.”
Jonathan Peter Brooks has been charged with two counts of attempted murder, attempted arson with intent to endanger life and possession of a knife in a public place – Tom Maddick / SWNS
Ms Ayling told the jury that a flammable liquid had been thrown up the stair walls, which was the only exit point for those sleeping upstairs, and the intention “must have been to kill those in the property and… stop them escaping down the staircase”.
The jury was also played a recording of the 999 call made by Mr Perks’ son, during which he said: “He’s been stabbed in the house. We need the police involved. There’s been an intruder in the house.”
The court was then shown body-worn camera footage of the victim receiving medical attention near the bottom of his staircase.
Later on the same morning, Mr Brooks was found asleep on a garden bench with a bleeding hand and was taken to hospital, where he was arrested.
Mr Justice Pepperall told the jury that the defendant would not be in court for his trial, which is expected to last 14 weeks, and said: “The fact he is not here does not affect your task which is to decide whether he is guilty of the charges against him.
“You must not speculate about the reason Dr Brooks is not here – his absence is not evidence against him and must not affect your judgment.
“You will not have any evidence from him to contradict the prosecution’s evidence. Dr Brooks has the right to legal representation, however it was his choice not to be represented in this case.”
The defendant has denied all charges against him.
The trial continues.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
