Nuttall: Attack on the system of justice itself
Appeal judges have upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the man who hired an ex-Royal Marine to plant fake bombs outside the chambers of two barristers who had acted in proceedings against his wife.
Lord Justice Edis said Jonathan Nuttall’s sentence of eight years and two months was “not one day too long” for an attack “made even more serious by the fact that it was an attack on the system of justice itself”.
Michael Sode, Mr Nuttall’s chauffeur, was jailed for six years and six months alongside his boss in September 2023 for the same offences – conspiracy to place an explosive article with intent, conspiracy to transfer criminal property and failing to provide the police with PINS or passcodes.
The Court of Appeal rejected Mr Sode’s appeal on sentence as well.
A third man, Michael Broddle, who planted two packages resembling explosive devices at Gray’s Inn in September 2021 and was jailed for seven years, did not appeal.
Edis LJ, vice president of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, said Mr Nuttall’s first two grounds of appeal, which overlapped and related to failures in the disclosure process, were “clearly unarguable”.
He went on: “[T]he scope of the investigation was made clear to all parties, eventually, and was defined by reference to the undoubted facts of the case, which were that the conspiracy was targeted against Mr Sutcliffe and Miss Jeavons acting together as a team.”
The Court of Appeal heard that Andrew Sutcliffe KC and Anne Jeavons had both acted for the National Crime Agency (NCA) in recovering £1.4m from Ms Nuttall’s wife in 2019 over suspicions of money laundering by the pair, and in subsequent hearings.
One of the suspect devices was left outside their chambers in Gray’s Inn, 3 Verulam Buildings, the other one under a nearby bench. Offices were evacuated, roads cordoned off and 85 police officers called.
A further ground of appeal related to the refusal of the trial judge, His Honour Judge Mayo KC, to allow bad character evidence to be adduced relating to Benjamin Leigh-Hunt, an associate of Mr Broddle, who was subject to a worldwide freezing order imposed by the High Court.
Mr Nuttall’s KC argued that, had this been allowed, it “may have led the jury to think that he, rather than Mr Nuttall, had inspired the conspiracy”.
Edis LJ said that in the absence of any evidence of any hostility on the part of Benjamin Leigh-Hunt towards the two barristers, “the evidence about his worldwide freezing order was irrelevant” and there was no evidence that the barristers, Mr Sutcliffe or Miss Jeavons “either together or separately, had anything to do with that worldwide freezing order”.
Mr Nuttall’s KC contended that the trial judge’s summing up was unbalanced in the way that it dealt with the defence case, particularly in “pouring scorn on the evidence of Mr Broddle”.
Edis LJ said: “The summing up was entirely fair. It is impossible to conceal in a fair summing up, if it is the case, that a defendant has given evidence in terms which are wholly unpersuasive and unlikely to be true.
“As long as the summing up is fair and free of comment, if it is an accurate summary of such unpersuasive and incredible evidence, then it is not objectionable. On the contrary, the judge was doing his job.”
A further challenge was made by Mr Nuttall to “the absence of evidence of the points at which, and the reasons for which” payments were made to Mr Broddle.
Edis LJ said the evidence was that Mr Broddle was paid before his arrest “for services rendered in carrying out the conspiracy” and after his arrest as “‘hush money’ – a reward for remaining silent”.
The judge went on: “In our judgement, that submission is unfounded. There was clear evidence of money being paid to Mr Broddle through Mr Sode. Indeed, those were overt acts by those two in furtherance of the conspiracy to which Mr Broddle had actually pleaded guilty and of which Mr Sode now rightly accepts he was properly convicted.”
Edis LJ rejected the final ground of appeal, which related to the jury deliberations and “pressure” to return verdicts.
“Nothing at all unusual occurred at any stage during and following the retirement of the jury and during the time when they were deliberating upon their verdicts”.
Having rejected all Mr Nuttall’s grounds of appeal on conviction, he rejected Mr Nuttall and Mr Sode’s challenges on sentence.
“The judge was entitled to reach a finding that he was sure that the purpose of the conspiracy was to undermine the system of justice.
“It was therefore serious as an attack on the two victims; but it was made even more serious by the fact that it was an attack on the system of justice itself.”
Mr Justice Bryan and Her Honour Judge Rosa Dean, the recorder of Redbridge, agreed.
Leave a Comment