Julie Mugford and the News of the World

[Erik Narramore]

Justice must be paramount and it must be applied to all cases.  The principles of a fair trial are fundamental because that's how we find out what happened.  If a trial has not been fair, then any conviction that resulted from it must be considered unsafe.  We can't pick and choose who the rules apply to and when, just because we're concerned or repulsed by what an individual is accused of.

If Jeremy made a deal with a newspaper, that doesn't matter to justice.  This was a contested trial and Jeremy can be expected to deny the allegations anyway.  Having a deal in place, which will pay out if indeed he is acquitted, makes no difference to his evidence.  Naturally he wants to be acquitted anyway.

On the other hand, if Julie made a deal with a newspaper, that is a serious problem because it means her evidence is coloured by the knowledge she will be paid if a case she is influential in goes a certain way.  At the very least, the jury should have been told about this factor.  As it is, Julie misled the trial.  Why did she do this if, as you claim, it doesn't matter?

I should also add that, in English law, a contract can be verbal or oral as well as written, and informal understandings can be contractual in nature; and, even if it isn't contractual, such an arrangement may still be prejudicial to a criminal trial.  If Julie had a verbal understanding with a newspaper, then arguably there was a contract or a 'quasi-contractual' arrangement, but whatever the strict position in law, the bottom line is that she has not told the truth and it is material to her evidence.

Let us say I am sitting as a juror in a criminal trial, and there is a key prosecution witness whose evidence is entirely uncorroborated - in other words, I am being asked to accept the witness' say-so that such-and-such thing happened, in conflict with the denials of the accused.  Let us say I then discover that this same witness is going to receive a substantial sum of money if a conviction is secured.  I am sorry, but I would disregard the evidence from that witness.  It's not safe evidence.  Allowing it pollutes the trial and renders the trial unfair and any resulting conviction would be unsafe.

[Erik Narramore]

Julie Mugford's evidence was non-corroborated.  She had nothing to support what she was saying.  Even the details of the murder could have been obtained from other sources, and even if the source was Jeremy, it still proves nothing because Jeremy may have obtained the information innocently.  Even the person she named as the killer turned out to have an alibi.  Why should we accept such evidence?  And if it then develops that she's been paid for such evidence, how on earth can you consider that a fair trial?  And then it turns out she lied to the court about being paid for the evidence.

[Erik Narramore]

It should be added that in English law, a contractual commitment can be oral.  She need not have 'signed on the dotted line' for there to be an agreement contrary to her obligations as a witness.

[Erik Narramore]

Evidence of a pre-trial contract has been discovered.  This need not be a single document.  In English law, contracts can be oral or written, and written contracts can be composites of more than one document.

It's worth noting that even if Julie Mugford did enter into a contract with a tabloid prior to the trial, that in itself would not be an offence, but it would be a fact of material relevance to her evidence and disclosable to both the Crown and defence.  If she lied, or allowed the court to be misled, then she could be prosecuted for contempt of court and/or perjury and/or perverting the course of justice. The precise consequences would depend on what precisely transpired, whether the information was imparted under oath, and the effect it can reasonably be thought to have had on the jury and the judge's directions to the jury.

It may not affect Jeremy's position one way or the other because the Crown could argue that even if Julie Mugford lied about a tabloid deal, this would not have affected the content of her evidence, which was - presumably - formed prior to the tabloid deal.  I think it is something an appeal court would have to consider in the round, along with other points.

[Erik Narramore]

£25,000.00 today would be something like £80,000.00.  For most people, that's life-changing money.  She bought a flat with it, apparently.

If a newspaper says to you, we'll pay £25,000.00 if you give evidence that results in a conviction, can you honestly say that this would not affect your evidence?  And why did she lie to the court about her arrangements with the newspaper?

If Jeremy is offered the same on condition he is acquitted, that changes nothing.  He wants to be acquitted anyway.  It's not germane.

But if a witness for the Crown, the party that bears the burden of proof, is incentivised in that way, it surely casts a shadow over the evidence of that witness.

Furthermore, she agreed to a photoshoot and posed provocatively for the cameraman, which suggests they had her under their control

It is all most unsatisfactory and, quite apart from the reasonable doubt involved, I'm afraid this alone would make it difficult for me to accept these convictions.

The News of the World should have been shut down long before it closed in scandal.

[Erik Narramore]

As a major witness, she should not have been financially-incentivised to give her evidence, especially in a way that was contingent on the outcome.  It was and is not a specific offence to do so, but it is common ground that it is not acceptable.  Why there is no specific criminal offence to cover it remains a mystery.  The lacuna in the law perhaps reflects a cosy relationship between the old-style press and the political and legal Establishment.

The only issue, I believe, is whether Julie was asked by the court to disclose all such incentives.  The CT claim that there was an arrangement in place with the News of the World and she failed to disclose this when asked.  If that is true, that seems serious to me.  Whether she was advised about it or not is immaterial.  The responsibility to tell the truth to the court is absolute, and if she did not do so, then she was in contempt of court, and if she had already sworn on oath, then she also perjured herself, as the information was material to the case (otherwise, she would not have been asked).

I also understand that D.S. Jones was in the hotel with her before and after the verdict, which again, can only add to concerns.  (I note the TV drama cleverly occluded this by having the Jones character turn up at her flat, not a hotel).

Whether these misdemeanours can overturn a conviction, I simply don't know, and I understand that Jeremy's latest CCRC application does not mention Julie at all.

[Erik Narramore]

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.