A businessman convicted of a ‘mafioso’ conspiracy to plant fake explosive devices at Gray’s Inn has today been jailed for eight years and two months.
The Old Bailey heard that two devices made to look like explosives were planted outside chambers 3 Verulam Buildings in order to give two barristers involved in National Crime Agency proceedings a ‘taste of their own medicine’.
Jonathan Nuttall, 50, of Romsey, Hampshire was convicted last month on charges of conspiring to place an article with the intention of inducing in another a belief that the article was likely to explode or ignite and cause personal injury or damage to property; and conspiracy to transfer criminal property. He was also convicted of failing to comply with a notice.
Michael Broddle, 47, admitted placing two devices in Gray’s Inn. He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Michael Sode, 59, Nuttall’s driver, was convicted on charges of conspiring to place the article, conspiracy to transfer criminal property and failing to comply with a notice. He was sentenced to six years and six months.
Two devices were placed in Gray’s Inn, one beside a bench and the second outside 3 Verulam Buildings, on 14 September 2021. A smoke grenade was also discharged. Police were called and the incident led to building evacuations and road closures.
Nuttall, his wife, and others were under investigation by the NCA over alleged money laundering and other offences. In 2015 the NCA instructed Andrew Sutcliffe KC to conduct the legal proceedings. In 2017, the NCA instructed a second barrister in Sutcliffe’s chambers, Anne Jeavons. An order was made in 2019 leading to the recovery of some £1m of assets from Amanda Nuttall.
Jeavons’ witness impact statement described Nuttall’s ‘campaign’ against her and Sutcliffe as ‘utterly bizarre and ruthless’. The statement added: ‘Mr Nuttall chose to undermine the court process altogether by intimidating the barristers away from the case. The campaign against Mr Sutcliffe and me has been cruel, cowardly, and entirely misplaced.
‘As Mr Nuttall’s own counsel pointed out during his cross-examination with me, barristers are under professional obligations to take instructions as they come in. The civil proceedings [brought by the NCA] [were] simply one such instruction. It seems to be that Mr Nuttall needed a target to focus his frustration and became obsessed with the idea that removing Mr Sutcliffe and I from the case was the solution. Those [proceedings] will continue without us, with a new counsel team, who will also be simply doing their job provided they are allowed to do so without intimidation.
Jeavons continued: ‘Simply for doing my job I was put under surveillance. My workplace was targeted with devices designed at the very least to cause fear, distress and disruption. I have been left angry…angry at the contempt displayed by Mr Nuttall at court process.
‘I remain worried about what future vengeful act he will pursue in the future. I have never been made to fear for simply doing my job.’
She described Nuttall as ‘dangerous and deserving of nothing but contempt’.
Sutcliffe’s witness impact statement was also read out in court. He said: ‘The court will be able to imagine the profound impact the defendants’ campaign has had on me. They have achieved what they set out to achieve – to disrupt the NCA proceedings. I am not aware of counsel ever being targeted in this mafioso-like way to disrupt proceedings in the UK.
‘As a result of being required to give evidence in this trial, having consulted with the bar council ethics department I resigned as counsel of the NCA proceedings. It is self-evident [that will cause] wasted costs and significant delay. This seems to have been a deliberate plan to intimidate me…in order to prevent the course of justice.’
Sutcliffe said he found the motives behind the scheme ‘profoundly shocking’ and thanked police officers involved in the case.
Prosecutor Catherine Farrelly told the court: ‘This was offending of a truly exceptional nature. It was Mr Nuttall who had the vendetta, it was Mr Nuttall seeking to target those two particular individuals. It could not have been executed without each defendant playing those roles.’
For Nuttall, George Carter-Stephenson KC said the background of Nuttall’s history with NCA proceedings ‘might explain it was not to disrupt proceedings but to give those who were involved a taste of their own medicine’.
The judge, His Honour Judge Simon Mayo KC, replied: ‘Is that not aggravating [rather than] mitigating – to give them a taste of their own medicine?’
Carter-Stephenson added: ‘It is not justification for what happened, I could never possibly suggest that, but there might be an explanation as to why specific people were targeted and allegations made against them.
‘Mr Nuttall, because of his experience, would have been well aware that even were Mr Sutcliffe and Miss Jeavons to retire from the case it would not stop those proceedings against his wife.’
The judge told Nuttall and the other defendants: ‘The two conspiracies to place fake explosive devices in Gray’s Inn are the most serious offences for which I must sentence you today. The objective of your offending was truly exceptional – the targeting of two barristers who were prosecuting you, Jonathan Nuttall and your wife in the civil courts on behalf of the National Crime Agency. In your judgment your purpose was to derail, or at least seriously disrupt, those proceedings by intimidating the two barristers involved.
‘The conspiracy to place what appeared to be improvised explosive devices near the barristers’ chambers in Gray’s Inn must be seen against a background of a concerted campaign to conduct surveillance on the home and professional address of Mr Sutcliffe and Mrs Jeavons.
‘The leaving of the two devices in Gray’s Inn caused considerable alarm and disruption resulting in the evacuation of Gray’s Inn, the attendance of bomb disposal officers, and it necessitated the attendance of many police officers and fire officers. The disruption caused included the closure of roads in the Holborn area for several hours.
‘In my judgement this was a malicious, bold, and extremely serious attack on those involved in the administration of justice. Your agreed purpose was to undermine the administration of justice. I am entirely satisfied that you intended serious harm to be occasioned by your agreed course of conduct. It is patently clear that the leaving of those devices would inevitably cause widespread alarm and disruption.
‘Whilst you each played a different role in the conspiracy, each of those roles was crucial and integral to the execution of the conspiracy. I am entirely satisfied that you all three knew the true extent of what was planned and put into place by Michael Broddle since you, Nuttall, were the directing mind of the conspiracy, and you employed Michael Sode as the middleman through whom instructions were passed.
‘You, Nuttall, were clearly the driving force behind this offending, It was your irrational and misplaced grudge against Mr Sutcliffe and Mrs Jeavons which drove and maintained the offending.’
This article is now closed for comment.
2 Readers' comments