LONDON—A wealthy businessman has denied he paid “hush money” to a man who had been arrested and accused of planting explosive devices outside the chambers of a top London barrister as part of a “campaign of intimidation.”
Jonathan Nuttall, 49, denies conspiracy to plant explosive devices on Sept. 14, 2021; conspiracy to transfer criminal proceedings between Feb. 1, 2021 and March 17, 2022; and several counts of refusing to disclose the PIN number or code of a number of digital devices.
Michael Broddle, 45, his sons Joshua Broddle, 20, and Charlie Broddle, 18, and Nuttall’s driver, Michael Sode, 57, also deny conspiracy to plant explosive devices.
Nuttall has been giving evidence this week and on Friday, under cross examination from prosecutor Catherine Farrelly, he was asked about a number of payments made by Sode to Michael Broddle, including some when the latter was in prison after being arrested in connection with the bomb hoax.
She repeatedly asked him about a series of text messages between Sode and Michael Broddle in the days running up to the bomb hoax incident and several bank transactions in which Sode paid money into the latter’s account.
Nuttall denied knowing anything about Sode’s dealings with Michael Broddle and said he certainly was not being paid for work on behalf of Nuttall.
She suggested, “After the leaving of the devices in Gray’s Inn you gave money to Sode to give to Mr. Broddle to pay for those activities, didn’t you?”
Nuttall Denies Paying Broddle Not to ‘Implicate’ Him
Farrelly went on, “Following his arrest you continued to pay him money, hush money, to keep quiet and not implicate you, didn’t you?”Nuttall replied, “That’s completely wrong.”
The prosecutor then referred to a covert recording made of a meeting between Michael Broddle and his son Joshua, after the arrest, in which the father asked if Sode was “still working for them two people.”
She suggested this was a reference to Nuttall and his wife.
Farrelly then went on to repeat her claim that Sode was paying Michael Broddle “hush money” on behalf of Nuttall.
“I have never paid anyone hush money and certainly not Mr. Broddle,” replied Nuttall.
She then asked him about his police interviews in which he replied “no comment” to most of the questions he was asked by detectives.
Nuttall said he did that because he was shocked at the claims being put to him and he maintained he did not know Michael Broddle or his sons and had no idea about any bomb plot.
He said when he got back to his home in Romsey, Hampshire, he thought about what he had been asked and wrote down a full statement in which he answered all of the questions he had been asked.
Farrelly said, “You were given information by the police during that interview about what they had recovered and what I’m going to suggest is that you sat there listening to the information and said nothing because you didn’t have an answer for them at that time.”
Nuttall replied: “What I said in my written response was completely true. I was never asked a single question by the police after that. They didn’t want to know.”
Farrelly said, “They had wanted to know on that occasion [the police interview].”
Nuttall replied: “On that one occasion. That’s not an investigation.”
She then moved on to ask him about why he had not given the police the PIN numbers to access his laptop and other electrical devices.
Denies Hiding Phone in Office Chair
Farrelly said: “You deliberately failed to hand over the PIN numbers because you didn’t want the police to find what was on those devices. It is the same reason why you had your phone in a chair.”This was a reference to March 17, 2022, when police arrived at his home in Romsey to conduct a search.
On Thursday, Farrelly asked him why it took four minutes and 20 seconds for him to come down and see the officers when his wife answered the door to them.
Nuttall had claimed he was in the toilet and then washed his hands and brushed his teeth, but Farrelly claimed he spent the four minutes hiding his phone in an office chair.
On Friday she continued to press this point and Nuttall replied that he did not have time to hide the phone in a chair in four minutes, and he then pointed out that in body camera footage the phone was clearly sitting on a desk.
The trial continues.
