Terrorism Cases

The defendant was accused of planting the Tiger Tiger and Haymarket car bombs the day before breaching security at Glasgow Airport to ram his green Cherokee jeep into the front of Glasgow Airport in an attempt to detonate an improvised explosure device in the rear compartment of the vehicle. Stephen Vullo conducted all cross-examination of the Crown’s numerous explosives experts. The issue was whether the devices were capable of detonation. The defendant claimed they had been manufactured in such a way as to ensure they would not explode. The Crown’s case was that only incompetance prevented the mass murder of hundreds of civilians in both London and Glasgow. The defendant’s assertion of intentional design was rejected but the Judge reduced the sentence he would normally have passed on the basis that he had accepted on hearing cross-examination that the devices were not capable of detonating.

Stephen’s reputation as one of the UK’s top barristers defending serious crime derives from his extensive experience and proven track record defending clients accused of the most serious criminal allegations, including terrorism, homicide (murder and manslaughter), historic child abuse cases, large scale drugs supply/importation, armed robbery, money laundering, and all forms of organised crime and sexual offences.

Stephen Vullo is a criminal barrister who is regularly identified as the counsel of first choice when defending serious crime allegations. His clients include The Glasgow Bomber and His Royal Highness Prince Saud Abdulaziz Bin Nasser Al Saud of Saudi Arabia.

A proactive approach to defending client

Stephen’s emphasis is on early (often pre-charge) and proactive case preparation, directing the case to ensure his clients are in the best possible position before a decision to prosecute is taken and any trial begins.

Once there has been a decision to prosecute, Stephen will focus on the unfolding picture of disclosure by the prosecuting authority.  It is through his careful and critical analysis of all the information revealed that he is able to identify exculpatory evidence that has been overlooked or lost, and damaging evidence that has been improperly obtained and susceptible to an application to exclude.