James Stunt's barrister makes final impassioned plea at trial

James Stunt’s barrister makes final impassioned plea to jurors in £266m money laundering trial, urging them to consider his ‘good character and brutal honesty’

• James Stunt’s barrister has tried to impress his ‘good character’ upon jurors
• In closing, he argued prosecutors did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt 
• Petra Ecclestone’s ex denied being part of a £266m money laundering operation

James Stunt’s barrister has tried to impress his ‘good character’ upon jurors at his money laundering trial during closing arguments today, insisting the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Richard Fisher KC, the socialite’s defence barrister, gave an impassioned plea in Leeds Cloth Court, West Yorkshire at the conclusion of the trial. 

He said his client had become a ‘target to be pilloried, to be undermined, belittled, to be taken out’ and slammed the prosecution for vivid descriptions about Stunt’s ‘Bond villain style lair’ throughout the trial.

Mr Fisher KC said: ‘You may think there was much hilarity in the prosecution team when they came up with that. It is a worthless remark, intended to create an image.

‘Why didn’t they throw in a pantomime villain for good measure, like Jafar from Aladdin which would have been apt with the caves and the gold.’

The ex-husband of heiress Petra Ecclestone has denied being part of a £266 million money laundering operation.

James Stunt’s barrister has tried to impress his ‘good character’ upon jurors at his trial during closing arguments today, insisting the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt Pictured: Stunt arriving at Leeds Cloth Hall Court on October 27

Stunt and his co-accused, Francesca Sota, 34, Heidi Buckler, 45, Greg Frankel, 44, Paul Miller, 45, Haroon Rashid, 51, Daniel Rawson, 45, and Alexander Tulloch, 41, all deny money laundering. Stunt and Sota also deny a charge of forgery.

Mr Fisher KC told the jury Stunt has no previous criminal convictions which has a ‘significant bearing on credibility’ and that he is a person of previous good character.

He said because of this Stunt was more likely to be ‘credible and truthful’ and less likely to have ‘committed a criminal offence’.

Mr Fisher KC said: ‘He has admitted use of the controlled drug cocaine. For about two years when there was turmoil at a level that was extraordinary.

‘He gave evidence with brutal honesty.’

Mr Fisher KC also told jurors Stunt had been accused of ‘name dropping’ but said if he had not mentioned those he had come into contact with, comments would have been made asking who he had dealt with.

‘Does the prosecution know how to deal with him and what he has to say?’ Mr Fisher KC asked.

He concluded the prosecution had used Stunt’s name dropping as a way ‘to smear, to ridicule and reduce him’.

‘He’s 40 years of age and a young man yet with an astonishing amount of extraordinary life experience behind him and ahead of him.

‘You may think he has lived a life none of us has ever experienced but should that be held against him in the way he is portrayed and the way he is a target?’

Mr Fisher KC told the jury Stunt has no previous criminal convictions which has a ‘significant bearing on credibility’ and that he is a person of previous good character. Pictured: James Stunt arriving at Leeds Cloth Hall Court with his girlfriend, Helena Robinson

The court heard that the prosecution had claimed Stunt’s marriage was on the rocks and gave that as a reason he became involved in the money laundering.

But Mr Fisher KC disputed whether this was actually rooted in any fact.

He said: ‘Was the marriage on the rocks between James Stunt and Petra Ecclestone when Petra interviewed Francesca Sota [co-defendant]?

‘Was the marriage on the rocks when the board of Formula 1, where his father-in-law Bernie Ecclestone had a role, decided to grant exclusivity for the production of F1 coins in 2015?

‘Was the marriage on the rocks when Bernie Ecclestone put forward £10million security through the Bank of Nova Scotia, some 20 months before the separation?

‘Was it on the rocks before cash started coming into Leconfield House in 2015 or was his crystal ball that accurate and fine-tuned before the cash stopped coming into Leconfield House in 2016? The prosecution doesn’t identify a point in time.’

Mr Fisher KC asked the jury whether they could believe that Stunt decided to go from being a law-abiding citizen to a trade-based money launderer, whether they could believe, as a 33-year-old family man, he had decided to risk it all. 

Mr Fisher KC invited the jury to ask whether Stunt and his co-defendants were ‘remarkable risk takers’ or ‘did they have no knowledge [the cash] was criminal property’?

‘Mr Stunt’s evidence was that his ex-wife Petra Ecclestone would frequently visit, his sister-in-law, Tamara Ecclestone would visit, his father-in-law, Bernie Ecclestone visited on at least three occasions, his mother-in-law, Salvica Ecclestone visited at least twice and his own father, Geoffrey Stunt, visited at least twice.

The ex-husband of heiress Petra Ecclestone has denied being part of a £266 million money laundering operation Pictured: The pair in Rome in 2011

‘Financier Mr Ben Goldsmith, a personal valet to the then Prince of Wales, former politicians who were then MPs, members of Middle Eastern Royal families, Samantha Cameron, Vicount Lindley, the son of Princess Margaret. They all visited Leconfield House.’

‘James Stunt is innocent unless and until proven guilty. James Stunt could have said absolutely nothing in this case – in the interview he could have given no comment, could have chosen not to give evidence.

‘He relived matters most personal, most difficult. He withstood many points of attack aimed at his personal life and business life.

‘The fact that James Stunt has not exercised his right to silence is an important factor and one you should bear in mind. 

‘We have a simple message to convey. What we submit is careful and rational, not careless or irrational or inflammatory.

‘We submit the prosecution has fallen short of making you sure James Stunt is guilty.’ 

Referencing the cash that appeared and was counted at Fowler Oldfield in Bradford and at Stunt’s offices at Leconfield House, Mr Fisher disputes knowledge by Stunt that it was criminal property.

He said: ‘James Stunt was not with Paul Miller at Fowler Oldfield in the cash counting room. He wasn’t handling the cash or putting it through the counting machines.

‘James Stunt wasn’t there.’

Mr Fisher KC also asked the jury to consider the fundamental point that ‘Mr Stunt is not required to prove the cash isn’t criminal’.

He said: ‘What we submit to you is that case by case, defendant by defendant, we need to look at those differences.

‘It’s not a case where there’s a bank heist over here and a stash of cash over here and you have a line from one to the other.

‘So in the case of James Stunt – how did cash come to be brought to Leconfield House, to the offices of Stunt and Co?’

Mr Fisher KC concluded cash came to Leconfield House for nine months out of the three years cash credited to Fowler Oldfield and ceased in the first week of August 2016.

‘The prosecution is asking you to lump James Stunt and Stunt & Co. defendants with three years of cash that, via various routes, was credited to Fowler Oldfield bank accounts with Natwest accounts,’ Mr Fisher KC said.

‘They are asking you to lump them in with convicted couriers whose activity occurred after cash had stopped going to Leconfield House. Convicted couriers who, on the evidence, had no connection with James Stunt.

‘They are asking you to lump them into the cash police seized that had not passed through the meeting room on the seventh floor.’

The jury heard cash brought to Leconfield House was done so following a suggestion and request by Fowler Oldfield, which Stunt agreed to and thought it was cash from customers purchasing gold to be put into a Natwest account.

Mr Fisher KC pressed that Stunt is not required to prove he did not know and he is not required to prove he did not suspect.

‘James Stunt says he did not know the name Pure Nines. James Stunt says he didn’t know that gold bars weren’t being produced. James Stunt says he didn’t know false certificates were being issued and signed. He says he didn’t know charges were being levied for those certificates. He says he didn’t know precise sums of cash coming into Leconfield House and he didn’t see the cash.

‘In evidence, James Stunt said he didn’t know cash had stopped coming to Leconfield House in August 2016.’

He said: ‘I ask you to consider the criticisms of James Stunt, the portrayal, the mudslinging that seeks to take you away from a fair and objective assessment.

‘On his behalf we submit he did his best at that time, in those circumstances with what he knew when cash came to Leconfield House.

‘James Stunt commenced a business with legitimate intentions, pursued it with big ideas and sought people to bring those ideas to fruition.

‘It was credible. It was not a cover story. It was not criminal.’

Mr Fisher KC added: ‘We say the prosecution has not presented the clarity, weight or strength to convict.

‘We ask you to consider, when you include his sworn evidence, how he gave his evidence, his bear candour, his character and the evidence called on his behalf, the combination of all of that presents an insurmountable hurdle for the prosecution.’

The trial continues.

Source: Read Full Article