Businessman who bombed barristers’ chambers gets more than eight years

A wealthy businessman who hired a Royal Marine to plant fake bombs outside the offices of two lawyers after they helped confiscate £1.4m from his wife was trying to give them ‘a taste of their own medicine’, a court heard.

Jonathan Nuttall, 50, recruited Michael Broddle, 47, to plant two packages resembling explosive devices at Gray’s Inn barristers chambers on 14 September 2021.

Andrew Sutcliffe, KC, and Anne Jeavons had both acted for the National Crime Agency in the recovery of assets from Nuttall’s wife in 2019.

Amanda Nuttall had won £2.4m the lottery but the NCA suspected the couple of money laundering.

The former Marine set off smoke grenades causing buildings to be evacuated.

He filmed himself wearing a white faceless horror mask as he printed out notes addressed to Mr Sutcliffe, including a photograph of the barrister alongside Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

Broddle ran a security and surveillance company called Cheat Seekers.

He claimed he had provided private security work to former England international footballers including Rio Ferdinand.

Broddle admitted two counts of placing an article with intent and possession of an explosive substance.

Nuttall and his driver Michael Sode, 59, denied but were convicted of two counts of conspiracy to place an article with intent to induce the belief it would explode or ignite after a four month trial at the Old Bailey.

They were also convicted of conspiracy to transfer criminal property after £12,070 was transferred from Sode to Broddle between 30 September 2021 and 23 January 2022.

Judge Simon Mayo, KC, is due to sentence them this afternoon.

Broddle’s sons Joshua, 21, and Charlie, 19, denied and were cleared of involvement in the plot, along with another son of Michael, 25-year-old George Gray, last month.

Joshua and George watched from the public gallery today.

Nuttall appeared at the Old Bailey wearing his suit with a shorter prison hair cut. he had been on bail until he was found guilty at the end of the trial last month.

Nuttall’s barrister George Carter-Stephenson, KC, told the court that Nuttall had not intended to undermine the justice system and simply had a vendetta against Mr Sutcliffe and Ms Jeavons.

The NCA had made false allegations against Nuttall including that he had committed identity theft, he said.

‘This investigation has been going on since 2011. It is not acceptable simply because the NCA is an investigating agency for them to make false allegations and then not withdraw them.’

Judge Simon Mayo, KC, asked whether this was meant to justify Nuttall’s actions.

‘No, but it does explain what he was seeking to do- not to disrupt the proceedings but to give those who had made those false allegations a taste of their own medicine,’ the barrister said.

‘It was aimed at specific people – not aimed at the justice system.’

Mr Sutcliffe and Ms Jeavons have now left the Nuttall NCA case and new counsel has been appointed.

In a victim impact statement read to court Mr Sutcliffe said: ‘On 14 September 2021 there was an unprecedented attack by the planting of devices in Gray’s Inn.

‘I was stunned to be told the following day that one of the devices had been addressed to me.

‘Later it emerged that my immediate and wider family in Yorkshire had been kept under surveillance as part of a criminal plot.

‘A campaign of threats including the rape of my daughter, digging up my son’s grave and allegations against my family was intended.

‘I felt deeply distressed and shocked. The court will be able to imagine the profound impact the defendant’s vendetta against me has had upon me and my family.

‘The defendants have achieved what they set out to achieve to disrupt the NCA proceedings.

‘It is self evident that wasted time and costs will have resulted from the change of counsel before trial.

‘I am not aware of counsel ever being targeted in this way before in order to disrupt legal proceedings in the UK.

‘This seems to have been a deliberate plan to intimidate me in my role as professional counsel of the NCA.

‘I found being caught up in this scheme deeply shocking.

‘I wish to thank the police officers for their work. Given the intent toward us I hate to think what may have happened to myself, Anne and our families if it had not been for their intervention.’

In her impact statement, Ms Jeavons said: ‘I do not know why Mr Nuttall concentrated his anger over the civil proceedings at the NCA counsel team.

‘Perhaps we represented an easier more personal target in comparison to what he saw as a faceless agency.

‘Whatever he was thinking the grandiose conspiracy theory and resulting campaign against me and Mr Sutcliffe was utterly bizarre and ruthless.

‘Rather than seeking to prove his wealth was amassed honestly, he chose to undermine the process altogether by intimidating the barristers away form the case.

‘The campaign has been cruel, cowardly and entirely misplaced.

‘Neither of us has a vendetta against Mr Nuttall, neither have these proceedings been driven by either of us.

‘Barristers are under a professional obligation to take instructions as they come in-this was simply one of these instructions.

‘Neither of us have ever had any reason to progress the civil proceedings in any way other than where the evidence led.

‘It seems to me Mr Nuttall needed a target to focus his frustration and became obsessed with the idea that removing Mr Sutcliffe and me from the case was the solution.

‘But we are not the reason these for proceedings and those will continue without us with a new counsel team who will also be simply doing their job.

‘His actions have been malicious and vitriolic and the impact on me and my family has been significant.

‘Simply for doing my job I was put under surveillance and the private address of my husband and young children were targeted.

‘The resultant attack was comprehensive, my workplace was targeted with devices designed at the very least to cause fear distress and disruption.

‘My family life was targeted with malicious accusations about my husband which could have impacted his family life, professional and his charitable work.

‘It felt as though Mr Nuttall used the trial itself to further his harassment.

‘My personal and professional life were publicly targeted by ridiculous suggestions of an extramarital affair with a colleague while my professional reputation was targeted with allegations about the civil proceedings.

‘I have been left angry and shaken- angry at the lies intended do undermine my personal and professional life, angry at the threats to my family, angry at the arrogance and contempt displayed by Mr Nuttall to the legal process.

‘I remain worried about what further vengeful acts he might pursue in the future.

‘A functioning society depends on an uninhibited justice system that is not subject to intimidation or threats.

‘Those who seek to interrupt justice by bullying are dangerous and deserving of nothing but contempt.’

Mr Carter-Stephenson suggested their was no sufficient evidence that the notes authored by Broddle were directed by Nuttall.

Sode’s barrister Michael Field asked the court to consider the driver’s current state of physical and mental health.

He added that Sode would find prison difficult due to his claustrophobia.

Representing Broddle, Salma Malali said: ‘He joined the Royal Navy when he was only 17 years old and his life has been characterised by hard work.

‘He worked in private protection work managed high profile clients and was always working for his family, financially providing for them.

‘In financial difficulties he made some bad choices.

‘What he wanted me to convey is how genuinely sorry he is to the staff at Gray’s Inn, those at 3VB, Andrew Sutcliffe, KC, Anne Jeavons and his children.

‘He wants to be a better man.’

Prosecutor Catherine Farrelly said Sode and Broddle must have been involved in the plot purely for financial gain.

One device was left near a bench on the Gray’s Inn estate while the other was left outside 3 Verulam Buildings.

Buildings were evacuated, roads cordoned off while 85 police officers were called to the heart of London’s legal district.

The packages addressed to Mr Sutcliffe were not real explosives and vibrated because a nose and ear trimmer had been placed inside.

Receptionist Erin Goldson told the court she was ‘petrified’ when she saw smoke rising outside the office.

Mr Sutcliffe was upstairs in his office when he was told the building needed to be evacuated.

Giving evidence the barrister told the court it was the first time he had been in chambers for six months due to the pandemic.

‘I had returned to my chambers from Yorkshire the day before. It was the first time I’d been in chambers for some time, because I’d spent the pandemic at home in Yorkshire.

‘I happened to be in the clerk’s room when the chamber’s administrator came up and said to all of us that we had to evacuate the building.

‘So I went back to my room, collected my keys and mobile phone and I left the building.

‘We were directed into Gray’s Inn Square and I was there for about three hours.

‘Some members of chambers just went home but I needed to get back into chambers, I had some work to do, so I stayed until I was able to get back.

He said the next day a detective came to see him at chambers.

‘I was very surprised he wanted to talk to me because I thought that I had nothing to tell.

‘I’d simply been in chambers the day before with everyone else and had simply evacuated as everyone else had.

‘He showed me his laptop which contained a photograph of a note left with the device which was addressed to me.’

The note referred to Mr Sutcliffe using his nickname ‘Sooty’.

The deputy High Court judge explained: ‘I was in the army for a short time at the end of the 1970s and for whatever reason my fellow army officers referred to me by that nickname.

‘It is not a nickname anybody else has given me and that was now over 40 years ago.

‘I was dumbfounded, frankly.’

The note also made some scandalous accusations about Mr Sutcliffe which were not read out in court.

Mr Sutcliffe said of the allegations: ‘I was obviously very shocked. I was totally shocked.’

Nuttall had recruited Broddle for a ‘targeted campaign of intimidation and public embarrassment’ against Mr Sutcliffe, said prosecutor Catherine Farrelly.

He had photographs of the homes of Mr Sutcliffe, his family and Anne Jeavons.

On 19 February 2021, Broddle and his son Joshua packed a sleeping bag, warm clothing and camping gear and travelled towards Sutcliffe’s home in Yorkshire and stayed overnight.

Police later recovered a surveillance report from Michael Broddle’s laptop named ‘Op Epic’ including three photographs of Mr Sutcliffe’s home and reports of attempts to gain access to the property.

A to-do list Broddle wrote on 18 May 2021 said: ‘Spend more time at Sooty’s family and friends.

‘Surprise [Mr Sutcliffe’s daughter] and remember to put condom on and smile.’

He also said he would visit the grave of Mr Sutcliffe’s son for ‘digging practice’.

Broddle also wrote a vile note addressed to Mr Sutcliffe’s daughter which said: ‘Either Sooty QC stops digging his own grave or you will be raped whilst we dig up your brother’s grave.’

The NCAgency had been investigating Nuttall since 2011 on suspicion of money laundering and in April 2019 the £1.4m assets recovery order was made.

More than £25,000 in cash was found in his London flat and his home Embley Manor in Hampshire when he was arrested.

Mr Sutcliffe and Ms Jeavons both told police they thought Nuttall could be responsible for planting the fake bombs, saying it had been an ‘adversarial’ case.

He had made a 40 page complaint about the NCA and the lawyer’s conduct which the lawyer’s said contained untrue allegations, the court heard.

Michael Broddle served as a Royal Marine commando for more than 11 years after joining in 1994 at the age of 17 and received training on improvised explosive devices.

But he was not prepared to identify the person or persons who instructed him to plant the fake bombs.

The judge had warned Broddle that the jury may draw a negative inference if he refused to answer a question, before asking him again.

‘I was given instructions by a voice,’ Broddle replied.

Nuttall also denied but was convicted of three counts of failing to comply with a notice by failing to disclose the PIN or passcode of phones and devices to police.

He was cleared of a further two counts.

Sode denied but was convicted of two one count of the same charge and was cleared of another.

They had claimed they were unable to remember the codes.

Nuttall, of Embley Lane, Romsey and Sode, of Fusion Apartments, Lewisham, denied but were convicted of two counts of conspiracy to place an article with intent to induce the belief it would explode or ignite.

Joshua and Charlie both of White Bear Lane, Hounslow, denied and were cleared of the two charges.

Michael Broddle, also of White Bear Lane, Hounslow, admitted the two counts and possession of an explosive substance.

Nuttall, Sode, Michael Broddle, denied but were convicted of conspiracy to transfer criminal property.

Joshua and Gray, of Harrow Road, Wembley, denied and were cleared of the charge.

Nuttall was jailed for eight years and two months, Sode for six years and six months and Broddle for seven years.

Nuttall, who had often appeared jovial during the trial, sat steely faced and angry in the dock today.

Judge Mayo said: ‘Although neither device was clearly capable of igniting or exploding the leaving of what could be described as ‘fake bombs’ is nonetheless extremely serious.

‘So too is the purpose which underpinned the leaving of those devices, namely a concerted effort to interfere with the administration of justice by targeting two members of the bar who were instructed on behalf of the NCA to prosecute Nuttall and his wife in civil recovery proceedings.

‘Furthermore, the fact that the leaving of the devices was committed against the background of a campaign of surveillance and intended intimidation of those barristers make the offending all the more serious.

‘The objective of your offending was truly exceptional.

‘In my judgement, your purpose was to derail, or at least seriously disrupt, those proceedings by intimidating the two barristers involved.

‘The surveillance and the leaving of notes which referred to the barrister’s family members included suggestions that their children would be the subject of serious sexual assaults, and scurrilous, but wholly false allegations of misconduct against Andrew Sutcliffe, KC, and Dan Jeavons.

‘I have no doubt that you, Nuttall, instructed Broddle to leave those offensive and scurrilous notes.

‘The harm caused by your offending is very high.

‘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 police officers and fire officers.

‘The disruption caused included the closure of road 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.

‘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 in place by Micheal Broddle since you, Nuttall, were the directing mind of the conspiracy, and you employed Micheal Sode as the middleman through whom instructions were passed.

‘The fact that you, Broddle, recruited your young sons to assist you in the offending is an additional factor which makes your culpability high.

‘In doing so, you exposed them to the risk of conviction for serious offences.

‘Any mitigation which might have been provided by your previous military service is nullified by the fact that you used your military and security background as part of the narrative which you used to persuade your sons to accompany you when you were engaged in the surveillance, and when you left those devices in Gray’s Inn.

‘In addition, you used your authoritative military bearing to ensure your sons did not question what you asked them to do.

‘In your case, Sode, as an act of mercy, I have further reduced the sentence I would otherwise have imposed because of your health conditions.’

Broddle’s three sons celebrated in the public gallery as the judge said the defendants would serve half their sentence in custody before being released on license.

The judge will make a decision on if the defendants must pay trial costs at a hearing on a date to be set.

Ends