I have it on authority that the CT do have evidence in the form of a witness statement from an individual who was close to events at the time. I have not seen the statement itself, but I have been told who this individual is and what the statement says in summary, and on that basis, I am now certain that the former Julie Mugford did have a contract with the News of the World prior to the trial.
I have been told that a decision had been made not to include Julie Mugford in the 2021 application, but no specific reason was provided to me. I gained the distinct impression that this was a decision by the lawyers rather than the CT, and I also formed the impression that the original evidence handed to the lawyers will have included the witness statement I have mentioned, in the expectation that reference to it would be included in the CCRC application.
The strength of it as a ground for appeal turns on whether she was in contempt of court and/or perjured herself, and that depends on what actually happened during the proceedings. I am told, again by somebody in the know, that she was asked by the judge at trial whether she had a deal with any newspaper.
The person who told me this may be wrong about the detail: I doubt there would be direct interaction between a witness and the judge in closed session. What actually may have occurred is that she was asked to confirm the position by somebody on the prosecution legal team, and this information was then relayed to whoever needed to hear it - perhaps the judge, certainly the defence team.
The lawyers may have decided not to include it in the CCRC submissions because:
(i). there is no evidence of a contempt of court or perjury at this point;
(ii). they already have the witness statement, so there is nothing that the CCRC can add;
(iii). viewed in isolation, it is a weaker appeal point than the others.
There's nothing to stop them raising it at appeal, if they wish to and if the CCRC allows an appeal to proceed.