Author Topic: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?  (Read 649 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« on: July 06, 2020, 12:17:PM »
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?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 12:20:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11280
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2020, 04:12:PM »
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?

I found this old article but it seems the actual documents are missing. Not sure why - because I have seen the documents in The Guardian before.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/interactive/2012/mar/29/jeremy-bamber-prosecutor-police-documents
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 04:13:PM by Roch »

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2020, 05:11:PM »
I found this old article but it seems the actual documents are missing. Not sure why - because I have seen the documents in The Guardian before.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/interactive/2012/mar/29/jeremy-bamber-prosecutor-police-documents

Thanks.  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.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 05:12:PM by QCChevalier »

Online ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5107
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2020, 05:50:PM »
Thanks.  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.

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.  This again has been extensively covered in many posts here.

 

 

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43709
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2020, 05:51:PM »
DPP John Walker had stated, I quote " With considerable hesitation I would suggest that Mugford be advised that she will not be prosecuted in respect of these matters------burglary, cheque fraud, and cannabis offences. Thereafter she will be called as a witness against Bamber ", unquote.
Further documents relating to the dealings between the DPP and Mugford remain undisclosed under public interest immunity rules.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2020, 05:57:PM »
DPP John Walker had stated, I quote " With considerable hesitation I would suggest that Mugford be advised that she will not be prosecuted in respect of these matters------burglary, cheque fraud, and cannabis offences. Thereafter she will be called as a witness against Bamber ", unquote.
Further documents relating to the dealings between the DPP and Mugford remain undisclosed under public interest immunity rules.

Thanks.  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.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2020, 06:09:PM »
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.  This again has been extensively covered in many posts here.


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?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 07:31:PM by QCChevalier »

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12614
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2020, 08:22:PM »
Thanks.  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.

Julie Mugford herself is 21 years of age and is described as- an intelligent
young lady, presently studying for an honours degree In education at
Goldsmith's College, London. To her detriment however, Julie Mugford
has now confessed to the police in a third statement dated 10th September,
1985, her involvement in drug abuse, selling about £100* s worth «*«x>i*«g
of cannabls, at the. instance of Jeremy B amber, her involvement in the burglary
with which Jeremy B amber is presently charged and i&nS her 'cheque frauds'
involving a sum in the region of £800 committed ' to prove herself 'to her
then boyfriend. (As already stated, Julie Mugford' s third statement dated
10th September, 1985, pages 370-386 refer to this criminality.) The question
now arises as 1 to what, if any, action should be taken against Mugford in
respect of these admissions. All of which, to a greater -or lesser degree,
involve corruption of her by Jeremy Bamber.

Save for her. admission, there is no direct evidence against Julie Mugford
to justify her prosecution for the drugs offence. She would be a first
offender and as such the police of the Essex police in such circumstances
would be to administer a caution. As to the burglary, Julie Mugford' a
involvement, save for an unsuccessful attempt' to get the key hanging behind
the door, appears to have been that of a bystander.

The police have advised us that so far as the cheque offences are concerned,
both Mugford and her accomplice, Battersby, have since repaid the money and
the bank, who were the losers, have stated that they would not agree to, or
support a prosecution. In these circumstances and with considerable hesitation,
X would suggest that Mugford be advised that she will not be prosecuted in
respect of these matters. Thereafter she will be called as a witness in
the case against Bamber.

Offline ilovebooze

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2020, 08:22:PM »
Without Julie. There wasnt a case

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12614
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2020, 08:29:PM »
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.  This again has been extensively covered in many posts here.

 

 
When you say "the bank agreed" I assume you mean Alan Dovey. This was dealt with in the 2002 appeal when Mr. Dovey is adamant that the decision not to prosecute was his (point 346):

346. Mr Dovey said that he had made the decision not to prosecute himself and then had discussed the matter with someone in the Chief Inspector's Department who had given approval for the course of action he proposed. Arrangements were then made for the repayment of the money over the following weeks and the girls then left.


Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12614
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2020, 08:31:PM »
Without Julie. There wasnt a case
It was Robert Boutflour's case, not Julie's. The force exerted by the former acted as a catalyst to Julie coming forward and giving her statement, warts and all.

Offline ilovebooze

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2020, 08:37:PM »
It was Robert Boutflour's case, not Julie's. The force exerted by the former acted as a catalyst to Julie coming forward and giving her statement, warts and all.
how was it Robert bout flours case?

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12614
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2020, 08:43:PM »
how was it Robert bout flours case?
He wrote to the Essex Chief Constable Robert Bunyard, complaining how the investigation was being mishandled. This was still whilst Jeremy and Brett were holidaying abroad. As a result Boutflour was granted a meeting with ACC Peter Simpson and things moved on from there.

Offline ilovebooze

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2020, 08:45:PM »
In principle. Im inclined to say that it would not bear much weight if she had recieved a caution or hadn't. There is still the proven element of bad character there. It can't confuse a juror either way looking at it logically

Offline ilovebooze

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2020, 08:47:PM »
He wrote to the Essex Chief Constable Robert Bunyard, complaining how the investigation was being mishandled. This was still whilst Jeremy and Brett were holidaying abroad. As a result Boutflour was granted a meeting with ACC Peter Simpson and things moved on from there.
OK. Things might have moved on. But fundamentally what Mr boutflour did or thought bears no weight bringing a prosecution or let alone evidence against Jeremy bamber. It was Julie.