News

Barrister who claimed Nazis wanted to nuke Queen at Olympics is found guilty

By on
53

Michael Shrimpton facing jail for communicating false information, as previous conviction for possession of indecent images of children is revealed

shrimpton-rings

This afternoon at Southwark Crown Court a jury has found ex-Tanfield Chambers barrister and immigration judge Michael Shrimpton guilty of making a bomb hoax before the 2012 Olympics.

The nine men and three women took more than six hours to come to their majority 11-1 verdict.

Shrimpton, who still holds a valid practising certificate, is now facing jail as he awaits sentencing on 6 February. In the meantime he has been granted bail and will undergo a psychiatric examination.

In the wake of the decision, it can be reported that Shrimpton holds a previous conviction for possession of indecent images of children. An attempt by the barrister to appeal the conviction — which came about after police found the images on a memory stick in his house during a search — failed last month. During the case at Aylesbury Crown Court, Shrimpton claimed that secret service agents planted the images on his computer memory stick in a plot to discredit him.

He was sentenced earlier this year to a three year supervision order and a five year Sexual Offences Prevention Order for the crime.

In brief, the bizarre facts of the bomb hoax case were that Shrimpton called up the Ministry of Defence before the 2012 Olympics to announce that a nuclear weapon had been stolen from sunken Russian submarine the Kursk, smuggled into the UK by a group affiliated with World War Two Nazis and was being stored in preparation for an attack on the Queen at the Olympics.

At Southwark Crown Court today, Judge Alistair McCreath QC said:

“The sentence that I pass upon you will have to reflect that gravity of the conduct of which you have been convicted.

“But if, as may be the case, there is some underlying reason for it, then it seems to me important that I be informed of that underlying reason and I am therefore minded to order that you undergo psychiatric examination.”

Legal Cheek has previously brought to a wider audience Shrimpton’s assertion that missing Malaysian flight MH370 was shot down by a Chinese missile and his claim that Madeleine McCann was “murdered on the orders of German Intelligence”.

53 Comments

Apex Predator

I wonder what the Bar Standards Board’s reasoning was for not at least suspending this individual from practice once these pending prosecutions became known: that is what would have happened with a GP or a surgeon, or any other professional upon whom individual members of the public rely in times of desperate personal difficulty.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

That is not in fact true.

(0)(0)

Fiat Justitia (with bald tyres)

Even worse, he was convicted months ago for possession of child porn, but the BSB did nothing.

(0)(0)

CumLaudly

That’s the point I don’t understand. Did the BSB defer disciplinary action pending the outcome of his appeal (and/or the outcome of this prosecution)?

(0)(0)

Fiat Justitia (with bald tyres)

I have emailed the BSB. Query did they even know, as Shrimpton may not have told them. If they did know, I cannot see how they could fail to suspend him pending appeal. If they knew of the porn conviction and did nothing, that is deplorable.

(0)(0)

Fiat Justitia (with bald tyres)

I add that I once had to save some hapless clients whom Shrimpton was encouraging to pursue a hopeless case to satisfy his personal hobby horse, arguing that Factortame is not binding. Luckily the solicitor asked me for a second opinion and the clients did not run up a huge bill tilting at Windmills. You can get a flavour of what a pompous arse and useless lawyer Shrimpton is by reading his opinions on various fruitloop anti EU sites.

(0)(0)

RWHitt

Why was he allowed to practice in the first instance while not right in the head and secondly convicted for a serious crime? Barristers investigating barristers…’nuff said!

(0)(0)

Not Amused

The BSB are not barristers. So it is not barristers investigating barristers. That was the whole point of creating the BSB. However it has categorically failed. So your point is not useful.

The question I have for the criminal barristers is:

The charge I think requires the Defendant to know he is making a hoax – genuine but misguided belief is a defence. So if the trial judge thinks he cannot properly address the question of sentence until a psychiatric evaluation is completed, then why was the Jury allowed to consider the question of his belief without also having the benefit of a psychiatric evaluation of the Defendant before them?

(I am concluding the jury did not have a psych evaluation because if there was one then why would the Judge now need a second one (in our cases the judge would just use the earlier one) … But I am so utterly ignorant of crime it may be that two such reports are standard).

(0)(0)

Daniel Olive

Given that he seemingly persisted in claiming what he said was true, I assume he didn’t put the defence that he honestly but wrongly believed his claims, nor an insanity defence, before the jury, and didn’t get examined to support that defence.

(0)(0)

Nigel Henry

Perhaps he wasn’t ‘not right’ when he started practising ‘in the first instance’?
Just a thought.

(0)(0)

Fiat Justitia (with bald tyres)

The BSB are very good at nailing people for not completing their CPD points. It remains to be seen whether they are any good at dealing with crims.

As for Shrimpton being nuts, it is perhaps difficult for the BSB to do much about that as they can’t, IIRC, compel him to see a shrink. Now the Judge can. I can’t see what public interest was served by the bomb hoax case, and jailing Shrimpton for the hoax would be daft, but he ought to have been jailed for the child porn.

(0)(0)

RS Hole

1. A read of the facts shows why he was not sent to prison:

http://m.thametoday.co.uk/news/local-news/ex-judge-secret-service-framed-me-over-child-porn-1-6368337;

2. That news report is dated 20th October 2014 so the proceedings have only recently concluded;

3. The BSB may have disciplined him but not published the findings in view of the pending trial.

(0)(0)

Fiat Justitia (with bald tyres)

Those aren’t facts, those are Shrimpton’s dishonest or delusional excuses, which the Court rejected. He wasn’t framed. He collected child porn. He should have been jailed, but should in any event be disbarred.

(0)(0)

RS Hole

Paragraph 5 sets out facts.

The sentence is correct on the Guidelines.

(0)(0)

Fiat Justitia (with bald tyres)

I don’t normally go DailyMail, but the guidelines strike me as whack. Child porn records child abuse, and those who possess it should receive immediate custodial sentences. I can’t see a good public policy basis for non custodial measures in such cases.

(0)(0)

CumLaudly

The explanation may be that BSB did discipline/disbar him as a result of the first conviction, but deferred publishing that decision in order to avoid prejudicing the second trial. That would probably be the correct thing to do. The alternative explanation would appear to be that the BSB deferred any decision about discipliing him pending the outcome of the appeal from the first conviction.

(0)(0)

RS Hole

There are very sound reasons set out in the Guidelines themselves. Read them.

(0)(0)

RS Hole

Interestingly, the register on the BSB website does not produce any results for the name Shrimpton today.

Why do you think that is FJ ?

(0)(0)

Fiat Justitia (with bald tyres)

I have. I’m not persuaded. I am generally not in favour of harsh sentences, but in some cases I can see little alternative.

(0)(0)

Fiat Justitia (with bald tyres)

I do not know if the BSB was aware of the case. Shrimpton is hardly the sort to report the conviction himself. I haven’t had a reply to my enquiry of the BSB yet.

(0)(0)

RS Hole

You e-mailed the BSB FJ ?

Why are you relentlessly pursuing him ? Just let the BSB do its job, as it appears to be.

(0)(0)

anonymous n

Some readers may discern a subtle distinction between emailing the regulator with a query and setting up a trolling website.

(0)(0)

Fiat Justitia (with bald tyres)

How do we know whether the BSB is doing its job? I simply drew the case to its attention. I am not planning on setting up a “Get Shrimpton” website.

(0)(0)

Sue R Pipe

If you check the BSB website FJ they are.

And you were pretty relentless in your pursuit of Blacker, or have you forgotten ?

Pursuing people on Legal Cheek of course doesn’t count.

(0)(1)

Comments are closed.