Court of Appeal Upholds Conviction in Gray’s Inn Bomb Hoax Case

The England and Wales Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by businessman Jonathan Nuttall against his conviction and sentence for orchestrating a bomb hoax outside barristers’ chambers at Gray’s Inn, describing the conspiracy as “an attack on the system of justice itself.” The Court upheld Nuttall’s sentence of eight years and two months’ imprisonment, finding no basis to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence.

Delivering the leading judgment, Lord Justice Edis rejected all six grounds of appeal advanced by Nuttall following his 2023 conviction. Emphasising the gravity of the offence, he described it as “as serious an offence of planting hoax devices as could be imagined” and concluded that the sentence imposed was “not one day too long.”

The case arose from an incident in 2021, when fake explosive devices were planted outside Gray’s Inn in London, prompting the evacuation of buildings and road closures while emergency services assessed the threat. Police quickly arrested Michael Broddle, who had planted the devices, before identifying Jonathan Nuttall as the individual who planned and directed the operation. The Court heard that Nuttall recruited his driver, Michael Sode, to act as an intermediary between himself and Broddle. Sode, who denied wrongdoing, was also convicted and sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment.

The motive for the plot stemmed from an investigation by the National Crime Agency (NCA) into Nuttall’s wife, led by barristers Andrew Sutcliffe KC and Anne Jeavons of Gray’s Inn. The investigation resulted in assets being recovered from Mrs Nuttall. Evidence before the Court showed that the two barristers and their families were subjected to months of harassment, surveillance, threats of sexual violence, and false allegations. A note left beside the fake devices also contained fabricated allegations of sexual misconduct against Andrew Sutcliffe KC.

Before the Court of Appeal, Nuttall argued that disclosure failures, errors in the trial judge’s directions to the jury, and pressure on jurors following the lengthy trial rendered his conviction unsafe. His counsel, George Carter-Stephenson KC, contended that delays in disclosure and the exchange of witness statements and emails between Andrew Sutcliffe KC and Anne Jeavons had prejudiced the defence.

Opposing the appeal, Catherine Farrelly KC submitted that the defence had been provided with all material necessary to advance its case and that there was no evidence of bias or improper conduct. Agreeing with that position, Lord Justice Edis acknowledged that while the defence had genuine concerns about disclosure delays, those issues did not undermine the safety of the conviction. The Court also held that investigators had acted reasonably in focusing their inquiries on Nuttall given the evidence linking him to the conspiracy.

The ruling reinforces the Court of Appeal’s commitment to protecting the integrity of the justice system, making clear that attempts to intimidate legal professionals through hoax attacks will attract serious criminal consequences and will not readily be overturned on appeal.