R v Jonathan Nuttall

In criminal proceedings, a focused investigation may be reasonable where the alleged conspiracy targets two victims acting together, and the prosecution need not pursue lines of enquiry outside that evidential focus. Late disclosure does not by itself make a trial unfair when material is ultimately disclosed and available to the jury, though its forensic effect must be assessed. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, non-defendant bad-character evidence requires a statutory gateway; material merely suggesting an alternative suspect is insufficient without a probative link to the issue. Accurate directions and ordinary interruptions to jury deliberations do not make verdicts unsafe without real evidence of pressure. A deliberate attack on victims and the administration of justice may justify sentencing at or near the statutory maximum, subject to totality.

Following a lengthy trial at the Central Criminal Court, Jonathan Nuttall was convicted by a majority of two bomb-hoax conspiracies, conspiracy to transfer criminal property and two passcode offences. Michael Sode was convicted of the conspiracies, conspiracy to transfer criminal property and one passcode offence. Nuttall sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence; Sode sought leave against sentence only. The grounds concerned investigation and disclosure, non-defendant bad-character evidence, the summing-up, the evidential basis of the property conspiracy, jury deliberations, seriousness, consecutive sentences and totality. The central issues were whether the convictions were unsafe and whether the sentences were excessive.

The applications for leave to appeal were refused. Nuttall was refused leave on all six conviction grounds and on sentence. Sode was refused leave against sentence.

1. Investigation and disclosure. The investigation's focus on cases involving both barristers acting together was reasonable in light of the established facts. The complained-of material was eventually disclosed and available to the jury. Any timing-related forensic disadvantage had limited weight and did not make the trial unfair under the European Convention on Human Rights or the common law, or justify a stay.
2. Bad character evidence. The judge correctly applied the exclusive gateways in section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Evidence concerning the proposed alternative suspect was neither important explanatory evidence nor substantially probative of who had inspired the conspiracy. There was no evidence linking that person to hostility towards the barristers or to any benefit from attacking them. The trial judge's evaluative decision was in any event plainly correct.
3. Summing-up and deliberations. A summing-up need not mention every item of evidence where the jury is directed to assess the evidence as a whole. The judge's repeated references to the defence case, accurate treatment of the co-defendants' evidence and use of a Lucas direction did not render the summing-up unfair. Interruptions caused by work, medical and other commitments were routine in an overlong trial. Without any indication from a juror of improper pressure, a danger that the verdicts were coerced was speculation.
4. Count 4. Payments made through an intermediary for criminal services, or as payment for intended silence, became criminal property when received as a benefit from criminal conduct. The conspiracy-to-transfer-criminal-property conviction was therefore safe.
5. Sentence. The sentencing judge was entitled to regard the offending as a deliberate attack on the victims and on the administration of justice. The seriousness justified starting at the seven-year statutory maximum for the bomb-hoax conspiracies, with appropriate discounts. Consecutive terms for the property conspiracy and passcode offences were proper. The judge had addressed totality, and the resulting sentences of eight years and two months for Nuttall and six years and six months for Sode were not excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 17 July 2026 the court refused Nuttall's applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence and Sode's application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2026] EWCA Crim 1013 .
2. Central Criminal Court: Nuttall and Sode were convicted following trial on 18 August 2023 and sentenced on 22 September 2023.