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?