His colleague, plastic surgeon Jonathan Peter Brooks more than four years after stabbing Has been found guilty Attempted murder.

On Monday, the 61 -year -old was convicted in the 14 January 2021 attack on the Graeme Peruks at Halam, Nottinghamshire on 14 January 2021, which could easily be fatal by a court in Lafborough.

It can now be told that Brooks were never seen by the jury, refused to join with frequent testing.

In a legal saga, during his arrest, a Judge underlined the “extraordinary” case, a “highly intelligent” man who used a hunger strike and dismissed his lawyers as a strategy to try to manip the system to avoid justice.

Brooks were arrested on the day of the attack, and Placed in court after four days,

He went to the house of Mr. Peruks, wearing a camouflage gear and equipped with petrol, matches, a lighter, knife and a cross, but insisted that all the objects were “stored in their garage and acquired for innocent purposes”.

His test reported that he broke the orthodox doors to spread petrol around the ground floor of Mr. Perks’ house, and then stabbed them in the stomach.

Brooks were facing an online NHS disciplinary hearing, which began on 11 January 2021.

The court listened to the Burns expert with “Mr. Peruks” hate, which was a witness against him in the disciplinary proceedings.

A test originally began in July 2022, but Jury was discharged The following month Brooks were hospitalized, suffering from osteooradyoncrosis – a medical complication of radiotherapy, requiring surgery.

This set in the train is a long series of legal delays, when the hearing was listed, with several occasions, but Brooks refused to turn, forcing their case to relieve and impact other court hearing – as the barrister and judges had to roam around their charge.

The test is listed on “no less than nine opportunities”, and the latest has dismissed its then legal team with one day despite Brooks’ leaving – Brooks rejected one or more lawyers for the fifth time.

Brooks started a hunger strike 11 days ago when his test was about to begin.

Judge Edward Pepall said it was not new.

He said, “I had not identified less than eight occasions since his arrest in 2021 when Dr. Brooks used a hunger strike or some other self-loss threat to benefit some whether it was in jail or in the hospital,” he said.

In short, yes.

The hunger strike meant that the defendant had become rapidly weakened, due to which the case was being taken to Lafboro due to the new requirement of the defendant for the wheelchair, some original courts could not be accommodated.

On March 3 this year, he did not appear for a slaughtered start date, and the prosecution asked to continue the test in the absence of the defendant.

Judge Pepperl came to a decision whether it was appropriate to proceed to the test, with its decision on 6 March, a copy of which was sent to the defendant.

30-In the document of the Rash, he addressed the concerns inspired by Brooks going on hunger strike, and determined how he would ensure that any test would be appropriate.

He said, “It is not too late for (Brooks) to change the syllabus and the court is allowed to participate in his test … that he has already stopped his hunger strike, and he is accepting all the appropriate treatment so that he can fix his case in time to fix his case to heal his case.”

Tracy Ayaling Casey led the prosecution case against Brooks, which remained absent, while also acting as his own legal representation.

Judge Peppal explained the jury to the jury when he warned him not to take the absence of the defendant as any sign of crime.

The evidence was then heard in a normal way, but on March 11, the judge said that he received a letter from Brooks, which was being held at HMP Bedford, in which he further objected to the testing without him.

The three-page reaction reduced Brook’s latest protest.

“Dr. Brooks cannot refuse to join with both the court and his lawyers, and then complain that they were not properly updated as their case,” he said.

The test continued, and on 24 March, Stephen Leslie Casey brought to the Mr. Peruks to cross – a measure designed to balance the prosecution case.

On 25 March, a new five-stage was decided to allow Brooks to be displayed from prison through a video-link, rather than desire him instead of going to personally.

In the ruling, the judge spoke of Brook’s “sporadic” engagement.

He said, “On less than 13 occasions, he has refused to attend the court, sometimes even when only the gel links are required to be produced by the link, without a good reason,” he said.

Addressing the behavior of the defendant, the judge said: “Dr. Brooks has deliberately made himself sick to manipulate the court process and prevent his trial from moving forward. Such conduct was a well -informed medical person’s voluntary decision.”

After the ruling, the defendant continued to complain about his position and testing, and after evaluation from doctors confirmed that he was fit to participate, but remained absent through his choice, the prosecution case concluded.

During a debate on Brook’s fitness during the test, Ms. Ayaling said that her prosecution team had estimated “such requests being made by the defendants”.

“Still he is trying to stop the test,” he said. “He is deliberately manipulating the court and voluntarily absent himself.”

Brooks, not for their own defense, were prescribed for March 27, but on 1 April they finally made an appearance while addressing the test in the absence of a jury through a video-link from HMP Norwich, where they were recently shifted.

He requested a four -week adjournment so that he could prepare his case, but he refused to offer an extension of 48 hours, ending in tears as he felt that he felt that he felt that he could not accept the proposals of the judge to accommodate the speech late with him.

By the time the jury was brought that day, Brooks had gone back to their cell, and so when the judge expressed the evidence, he was once again absent.

The criminal justice system not only emphasizes the importance of being a fair test, but is seen as a fair test, so even though Brooks refused to cooperate, measures were taken to ensure that the appropriate process was followed.

For Brooks, a lawyer was brought to the witness to challenge the evidence of the witness, and while legal decisions were not discussed in front of the jury so that their views were discussed before the press to avoid prejudice, so legal discussion could be reported after the test.

Ultimately, the courts will have to give the defendants an opportunity to appear, and if they refuse they must ensure that the procedure is still appropriate, even if they lead to a long delay.

The Crown Prosecution Service stated that the test was “extremely unusual”.

A spokesman said, “Lack of participation meant that a straight and non-contact evidence could not agree because a defendant is usually present and represents.”

“This meant that some witnesses had to give evidence to the jury and the statements were read throughout, otherwise otherwise considered as the agreeable facts.”

Recently several punishment – including Kyle Clifford and Axle Rudakubana – saw the defendants refused to appear, and as a result The Prime Minister has promised to give power to judges Criminals to appear in the dock.

Judge Pepall said he would write to the Governor of HMP Norwich, where Brooks are currently held, to request that he personally participates for his sentence hearing, which is scheduled to be held on June 3.

Follow BBC Nottingham FacebookBut XOr on InstagramSend your story ideas Eastmidsnews@bbc.co.uk Or through WhatsApp 0808 100 2210.