James Stunt's barrister says prosecutors did not prove guilt in money ... trends now

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.

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?'

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

read more from dailymail.....