Jonathan Nuttall, described by the Court of Appeal as the “architect and originator” of a scheme to place a fake bomb outside a barristers’ chambers, has lost his appeal against a conviction that led to an eight‑year‑and‑two‑months prison term.
Appeal rejected after detailed hearing
The Court of Appeal heard arguments on Thursday and issued its decision early Friday, confirming the 2023 conviction. In a lead judgment, Lord Justice Edis called the conspiracy “an attack on the system of justice itself” and said the sentence was “not one day too long.” He added that the offence was “as serious as planting hoax devices could be imagined.”
Investigators traced the plot to devices that resembled explosives and were placed at Gray’s Inn in 2021. The incident prompted building evacuations, road closures and a police response that quickly led to the arrest of Michael Broddle, who was identified as the individual who actually planted the devices. Evidence linked Nuttall as the mastermind behind the scheme.
Roles of accomplices and broader impact
Nuttall recruited Michael Sode, his driver, to act as a middleman coordinating with Broddle. Sode, who denied any wrongdoing, was also convicted and sentenced to six years and six months. The fallout extended beyond the immediate crime. The National Crime Agency, led by two Gray’s Inn barristers, Andrew Sutcliffe KC and Anne Jeavons, investigated Nuttall’s wife, resulting in the recovery of assets from her.
Related: Judge criticises family court reporter
During the investigation, the targeted barristers and their families endured months of harassment, including secret surveillance and threats. One disturbing detail involved a note placed alongside the fake devices that alleged fabricated sexual misconduct against Sutcliffe. The harassment even reached a recently deceased relative’s grave.
In the appeal, Nuttall raised six grounds, among them alleged disclosure failures, errors in the trial judge’s summing‑up, and claims that jurors felt pressured to reach a verdict after a three‑month trial. The original jury returned a 10‑2 guilty verdict, though at least three jurors reportedly expressed concern about needing to return to work.
George Carter‑Stephenson KC, representing Nuttall, argued that disclosure requests were answered after cross‑examination, hampering the defence. He also sought details of prior cases handled jointly by Sutcliffe and Jeavons, as well as emails in which the barristers described the bomb hoax as “inept” and “comical.” The counsel suggested the emails indicated collusion between the barristers and the National Crime Agency investigator, alleging that witnesses exchanged statements, a practice he deemed “fundamentally wrong.”
Catherine Farrelly KC, responding for the prosecution, said the defence had ample opportunity at trial to address any concerns about disclosure or witness safety. She rejected claims of animus or a motive to falsely implicate Nuttall, emphasizing that the material needed to advance the defence’s points was available.
Related: Two lawyers face SRA action over Post Office scandal
Lord Justice Edis acknowledged a genuine grievance concerning disclosure delays but found no reason to question the safety of the conviction. He deemed the focus on Nuttall “entirely reasonable” given the links uncovered during the investigation, and noted that the defence failed to identify any error in the trial judge’s approach.
The appeal’s denial reinforces the seriousness with which the courts treat threats to the legal profession’s integrity.
For the barristers targeted by the hoax, the decision may bring a measure of closure.
Security protocols in courts are likely to be reviewed.
