ngb, why did she have to attend, for what purpose? This wasn't a trial was it, Jeremy Bambers guilt had been proven 17 years previously. I have never heard of previous witnesses at a trial being called at appeals to give evidence. As we're always led to believe that appeals are heard when new evidence comes to light. Why did Jeremy's team request an attendance order ?
Before the appeal was heard there were various applications to the Court of Appeal in relation to evidence to be presented and witnesses to attend. This second appeal was essentially based upon new evidence. Although the CCRC had only referred the case on very limited grounds, the defence, as they were entitled to do, added a number of additional grounds. One aspect they wish to raise was the firm information received by the defence long after the original trial that Julie Mugford had concluded a deal with the News of the World before the trial, contrary to what she had informed the trial judge via the police during the trial. The defence wanted to challenge Julie Mugford about this in cross examination.
At the start of the appeal the defence applied for an order that JM's solicitor should be ordered to disclose documents relating to the contract with the News of the World. For some reason the Court refused this application. The prosecution had obtained a fresh statement from JM about the NOW deal shortly before the appeal hearing. Because of the refusal of the application it would not have been possible for the defence to challenge what JM said in that statement. She was therefore not called to give evidence at the appeal.
There is now new firm evidence about this and I do know that if the 2012 CCRC application had succeeded a fresh application would have been made to the Court of Appeal for JM to attend, as this time she could have been cross examined on the matter.
