Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?

[Erik Narramore]

An extract from the judge's summing-up:

"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence. In considering whether her past dishonesty affects your assessment of her as a witness in this case, no doubt you will bear one or two things in mind, namely that she volunteered her past offences to the bank who had lost the money when she went to them about a month after she had made her statement to the police in this case, and volunteered to them that if they look back they would find frauds for which she was responsible. She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light, and it was in those circumstances that she was not in fact prosecuted for them. She received a police caution."

At the end, the judge states that Julie Mugford received a police caution, but my understanding is that a decision was taken by the police not to prosecute her and this was agreed to in a letter from the DPP.  Did the trial judge mislead the jury on this point?  Or should we take it that the issuance of a police caution is consistent with a decision not to prosecute?  In today's language it wouldn't be, but perhaps cautions were treated less seriously back then.  And what does the judge mean precisely by a "police caution"?

My source for the summing-up extract is not reliable.  Do we have the full summing-up here on the site somewhere?  Can't find it in the archive.

I have also in the past seen the DPP letter in which they confirm that they will not proceed against Julie Mugford and she will be giving evidence against Jeremy Bamber.  Is there a copy of that here too?

[Erik Narramore]

 Although I lean towards Guilty, I've always taken the view that Julie Mugford's evidence can't be taken seriously.  However, when I noticed that the trial judge had said she had received a police caution, I must admit, I started to wonder if I should change that view.

It seems to me that if she did receive a formal police caution of the kind that is entered on one's criminal record, that does afford slightly more credence to her evidence - for the obvious reason that it would mean she was not acting under the auspice of criminal immunity, at least not in regard to the second-order offences.

The intriguing questions, at least for me, are whether she really did receive a police caution, or did the judge mislead the jury?  If the judge did mislead the jury, I cannot imagine he would have done this intentionally.  Maurice Drake was a very eminent judge, albeit of the knock-about type.  Thus, the next question is who misled him?  Was it Arlidge?  And who misled Arlidge?  How did the misleading information affect Jeremy's defence?

Then we need to ask what, if any, was the scope of Julie Mugford's criminal immunity?  Was it merely the de facto type of immunity that rests on estoppel, involving a comfort letter from the DPP, and an informal understanding of 'you scratch our back, we'll scratch yours'?

That's before we get into the News of the World deal, a separate topic.

[Erik Narramore]

I have seen that letter from the DPP somewhere online but now can't lay my eyes on it.  Subject to what is being withheld under PII rules, I would suggest that the letter from the Assistant DPP, John Walker, is a comfort letter, which she could rely on under estoppel, and she was not granted any sort of formal criminal immunity.

[Erik Narramore]

Neil Bellis on the Blue Forum states:

She did not receive a police caution.  The Judge misled the jury on this.  It is not clear whether he was misled by the prosecution or merely jumped to an incorrect conclusion.  The defence did not challenge it so I suspect they also believed at that time that a formal caution had been administered.  The jury were misled not only on this but also on the circumstances in which the bank agreed (reluctantly and under police pressure) not to prosecute when in normal circumstances their policy would be to prosecute.  They were also misled about the circumstances of JM "coming forward" to police and her handling by police following her arrest (the fact of her arrest was not disclosed to the jury).  There has been a lot posted here in the past about this topic, including by me.  The other aspect of JM of course the News of the World deal, where again the jury were seriously misled as a result of the lies told by JM about the subject.

That's a pretty serious thing to mislead the jury about.  If I was on the jury and I heard that, I would grant her evidence a little bit more credibility than otherwise on the basis that she had received a recorded rebuke for some of the offences, albeit ones of lesser seriousness. Having said that, I probably would dismiss what she says anyway.  To be frank, her evidence comes across as comical.

Another issue I have with her is whether her evidence was even admissible in the first place.  Her statements, in so far as they have any substance, seem to be a mixture of hearsay and quasi-hearsay.

I am assuming that her report of conversations between Jeremy Bamber and Matthew MacDonald was considered admissible hearsay on the basis that she was reporting what amounted to a criminal confession, but it turned out that Mr MacDonald had an alibi that was acceptable to the police and they eliminated him from consideration, so how can it be a confession and how can it be admissible?

Furthermore, the rest of what she had to say consisted of facts that could be surmised from the police and relatives, and so it seems to me that this evidence of hers was unduly prejudicial.  It simply cannot be shown that she obtained this information from the accused alone, and even if we give her the benefit of the doubt on that point, it remains the case that Jeremy himself may have obtained the information innocently from the police or relatives.

Surely her whole evidence should have been struck-out and she should have been excluded from the trial?  Shouldn't Rivlin at the least have requested a voir dire?

[Erik Narramore]

By telling the jury she had been cautioned, the judge may have added the impression that she came forward out of a sense of conscience.

[Erik Narramore]

A comment from Neil Bellis on the Blue Forum:

In addition a police caution includes an admission of guilt and it gives a person cautioned a criminal record.  That could have had serious consequences for JM in relation to her teaching prospects and her ability to emigrate to Canada.  She was in fact let off scot free from several serious criminal offences, leaving aside the possibility of prosecution for perverting the course of justice or assisting an offender.  Coupled with the lies about the NOW deal the jury were seriously misled and had they known the truth it is likely that they would have viewed her evidence at trial with far greater circumspection.

If I was of a cynical frame of mind, I might well conclude the following:

(i). To borrow from criminal parlance, the caution for drug offences could be regarded as the prosecution's 'convincer' in anticipation of the jury's concerns that this was just a 'dirty deal'.

(ii). The police and the DPP may have decided to caution here for the drug offences rather than the dishonesty offences so as to play down the dishonesty aspect of the criminal history of a key prosecution witness whose evidence contains no corroborating facts whatsoever and thus whose entire contribution to the case against Jeremy rests on her own say-so.

(iii). The police and the DPP may have issued the caution and other disposals listed above at or just before the point when questions were being asked about this witness at the trial.

Incidentally, regarding her admission to Canada, the caution will not have affected her much.  It has long been settled law in Canada that, at least as far as UK citizens are concerned, Canadian immigration law aligns with the UK's 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.  This means that, although she would still have had to declare the drug caution, is it quite likely the Canadian authorities simply disregarded it, and would have done the same for any other disposals and incidents such as arrests.

The name of the relevant Canadian case escapes me for the moment, but even if it was not current at the time of Jeremy's trial, I suspect Julie Mugford's treatment by Canadian immigration would have been something like what I have just outlined, especially given that her entry to Canada was against the background of marrying a Canadian citizen.  In other words, I doubt there was some sort of 'back stairs' arrangement between the authorities of two friendly countries to re-settle this obscure person.

[Erik Narramore]

From Neil Bellis on the Blue Forum:

I agree with what you say, but in fact she was not even cautioned for the drug offences.  She escaped without any criminal conviction and with a £25,000 bonus.  There are many documents relating to the police handling of JM and her mother, including numerous interviews and internal memoranda, which have been withheld under PII.  The CCRC have consistently refused to order disclosure of these documents.  I believe they are likely to contain significant material, casting light on the circumstances of her "coming forward" and confirming that was was under arrest and detained for a period, with considerable pressure placed upon her.

Although it did not happen, a caution just for the drugs offences, including supply and importation, would have had to be disclosed and would have been very damaging to her career prospects.

Right, thanks.  Are we saying, then, that the COLP inquiry was misled by the CPS (or whatever variation on that theme)?  I suppose what you say is not necessarily inconsistent with what I have supposed above.  I do strongly suspect the caution referred to by the judge was instantiated by Essex Police and the DPP at that moment, and if so, this would explain why the judge, and the jury in turn, were misled.  It would be still more serious if it turns out that the caution was fictitious.

I think if it happened now, she would be barred from teaching in the UK - at least for some years, if not indefinitely.  But back then, things were a bit more lenient than they are now.  The significance of the point being that I'm minded to the view that her move to Canada was organic rather than contrived.  I am not aware of any past links she may have had to Canada, though interestingly I do recall that a pro-Bamber blogger some years ago alleged that she had been caught importing drugs, coincidentally from Canada - which may suggest that she in fact did have some link above and beyond her husband-to-be.  You yourself now say she was caught at importation.  I didn't know that.  I thought her drugs offences were minor - perhaps an erroneous assumption on my part.

[Erik Narramore]

The defence did not have the relevant or full information.  The information about her being cautioned came from the judge, during his summing-up.  How were the defence to gainsay that?  After all, a caution can be instantiated at any time.  If the defence wanted to question it, they could have done - I agree - but Ground 5 was not dismissed by the 2002 appeal for that reason, and anyway, were the defence supposed to interrupt the judge's summing-up?

[Erik Narramore]

The significance of Julie's offending is that it suggests a streak of recklessness, immaturity and opportunistic dishonesty.  It also suggests that, despite her academic intelligence, she may have been an impressionable and suggestible individual. 

Before Jeremy's defenders jump in, we must remember that while leopards can and do change their spots, the leopard is still a leopard and always will be - a caveat we must have in mind.