Practising barrister faces bomb hoax charges under Section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 for Olympics terrorist nuclear attack warning.
Former Tanfield Chambers barrister Michael Shrimpton is to stand trial later this year accused of falsely notifying the British government to prepare for an Olympics terrorist nuclear attack.
Shrimpton, who used to hold a position as an Immigration Appeal Judge, contacted the Ministry of Defence in the run up to the 2012 Olympics and told them that a nuclear weapon stolen from sunken Russian submarine the Kursk had been smuggled into Britain.
The barrister — who now practises from his own chambers — apparently went on to outline a plot to sail a disused German submarine carrying the stolen nuclear weapon up various rivers and then detonate it during the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics.
Shrimpton has previously claimed that Madeleine McCann was “murdered on the orders of German Intelligence”. More recently, he asserted that Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 was shot down by a Chinese missile.
At a preliminary hearing at Southwark Crown Court last month, Judge Alistair McCreath set a date of November 10 for Shrimpton’s trial. In doing so, he dismissed a prosecution motion to order Shrimpton to undergo a psychiatric examination.
Shrimpton told Legal Cheek that he viewed the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) prosecution of him as “malicious” and said he did not expect the trial to go ahead. He added:
“That matter was listed for trial on the 17 March, but was very properly with respect stood out by the learned judge until 10 November 2014. I shall again be ready, but frankly I do not expect the trial to commence.
“The contested qualified intelligence briefing I provided to the Secretary of State for Defence in 2012 was substantially correct. No minister of justice, frankly, could proceed with the prosecution in those circumstances, not least since another prosecution witness has provided a second statement to the CPS, confirming that he passed the intelligence to me. That is say the ‘hoax’ I am accused of perpetrating consisted in its entirety of information supplied to me by a prosecution witness. I do not doubt the good faith of that witness, indeed as I have observed the intelligence he asked me to pass on has subsequently been confirmed. The prosecution with respect is an obvious nonsense.”