At an appeal hearing in London
Michael Turner QC, said a bank manager at what was then the Midland Bank had made a statement this year concerning Julie Mugford's involvement with cheque book fraud before the murders at White House Farm in 1985.
He said at the original trial had heard Julie Mugford and one of her flatmates at the time, Susan Battersby, had admitted acting together in spending Miss Battersby's cheques after reporting them stolen to the bank.
The trial was told the pair had admitted the offences to police following the White House murders and gone of their own volition, on their own, to speak to managers at the bank, which had decided not to press charges.
But Mr Turner said this year a manager at the bank, Mr Dovey had made a statement saying a policeman had come with the two girls to the bank to talk to them and help sort out the problem, suggesting they had sought to protect Miss Mugford's credit as a key witness.
He said an officer had rung beforehand to set up the appointment and to warn him they were coming but both women said in the statements at the time that they had gone to the bank on the off-chance and waited until the could see a manager.
He also heard Det Sgt Jones and another officer involved in looking after Miss Mugford and Miss Battersby had denied going with them to the bank.
Mr Turner said the notes the manager had made at the time had been destroyed due to a policy change at the bank but
‘had the evidence been available to the defence at the time of the trial it would have given them an opportunity to look at the reliability of Julie Mugford as a witness’
"If we are right, the credit of Julie Mugford was all a trick and if Julie Mugford was lying in relation to this, and being supported in that lie by Det Sgt Jones, who was the officer who had had the most contact with her, could it really be said that that would not have had heavy implications on this trial," said Mr Turner.
ecided to drop investigations into criminal offences she had allegedly committed before the trial. Documents only recently disclosed to Bamber detail how Mugford was accused of burglary, smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada and cheque fraud.
The Guardian has seen a letter from the then assistant director of public prosecutions (DPP) , John Walker, to the chief constable of Essex, which stated: "With considerable hesitation I would suggest that Mugford be advised 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." Further documents relating to the dealings between the DPP and Mugford remain undisclosed under public interest immunity rules.
Back in 1987 the Press Council had ruled that the News of the World had broken their declaration of principle on cheque book journalism. Anyone can see that in this instance the media interfered with the judicial process as Julie’s money spinning deal was signed upon a guilty verdict.
After the trial Julie Mugford went on to live in Canada and in 2006 she even took up a post as the Vice Principal of a primary school in Winnipeg. She is currently Director of Assessment and instructional support services for the Winnipeg School Division.
Back in 1991 the City of London Police had investigated Essex Police they detailed a list of crimes which Julie had confessed to carrying out undetected
These included, taking cannabis, selling cannabis, accessory to burglary at the caravan park, smuggling drugs back into the UK from Canada, and cheque book fraud.
(11) Julie Mugford was never charged with any of these offences officially, but documents newly surfaced show that she was charged with burglary and this was withdrawn with permission from the DPP’s office, in the same document Julie is also advised she will be called as a prosecution witness.
At the 2002 appeal the Defence put forward the suggestion that Julie Mugford and her friend and co-fraudster Susan Battersby had been given immunity from prosecution as a trade off for Julie’s testimony against Jeremy Bamber but the documents relating to this were under Public Interest Immunity.
(12)
DCI Dickinson had interviewed Julie Mugford and her mother in 1986 after the trial but the interviews have never been disclosed to the Defence.
The City of London Police suspected that Julie Mugford was given immunity from prosecution and after they followed the paper trail to the CPS they discovered that there were documents not to be disclosed to the Defence.
Indeed the CPS had in their possession a file known as the “Confidential Crown Prosecution Service File relating to Julie Mugford and Trial preparation by Essex Police.” This file was passed to the Senior Crown Prosecutor known as Mr Stephen Swan.
For the 2002 appeal the Metropolitan police tried to trace this file and took a statement from Mr Swan who stated that “I cannot remember who gave me the file, or who I gave it to after I had finished reading it.” The mystery remains: What happened to the confidential file and what was in it and is it right that the Defence should be denied access to these materials?
The Defence has also suggested that Julie’s statements were not written in the first person, senior police officers even questioned why she was writing in the third person. The grammar used in many of the statements is well below the standard of a student doing a degree at Masters level which further suggests that Julie didn’t write all of the statements herself. For example she told police “Matthew done it.” (13) During the period when Julie and her friend gave statements she was put up by police at their training centre and claimed expenses.Quite incredibly she was also seen by DS Jones the principal detective in this case no less than 32 times. (14)
We will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions about the reliability of evidence supplied by Julie Mugford. Whatever you decide, there can be no doubt about how much financial benefit she gained from the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, money she would not have received had the jury’s verdict been ‘not guilty.’
