Correct QC, it’s very hard for a defence to defend bad character in a court, I think NGB would agree, it opens up a whole new can of worms and lets the prosecution exploit it more. The only way of defending it is deal with it like you said. Like I said, “he admitted in court about the caravan park money theft, he admitted he did this for greed, he was into drugs and I know this doesn’t make anyone a murderer, but it’s sowing the seeds in the jury’s head’s and of course any prosecution would welcome this ammunition to use, The defence would have tried to get bad character omitted as evidence for this reason.
Different types of bad character evidence were used against Jeremy. Some went to his credibility as a witness of truth, some of it was more about highlighting patterns of behaviour or prior offending that could imply that he was more likely to be guilty.
In regard to the theft at the caravan park, this seems to fall into both categories. It shows recent criminal dishonesty, and it shows sufficient criminal acumen to stage an inside theft as a burglary. Indeed, he was cross-examined about it at trial.
From the 2002 appeal judgment:
The Appellant's Evidence at Trial
137. No transcript has survived as to the appellant's evidence in chief, although it seems clear from the summing up that it was entirely consistent with that which he had told the police. A transcript of his cross-examination is available. In cross-examination the appellant said Sheila Caffell had frequent delusions and had spoken to him of suicide.
138. He admitted that the burglary at the caravan site had been motivated by greed and that by breaking a window and scattering papers around he had deliberately sought to give the impression it had been committed by somebody other than him.
139. Apart from Julie Mugford the appellant suggested that other witnesses had told lies about him during the trial. They included Mrs Mugford, James Richards, Dorothy Foakes and Robert Boutflour.
140. He admitted enjoying the good things in life – restaurants, wine bars, travelling, fast cars etc. In respect of the conversation with PC Myall about the Porsche car, the appellant said he was in fact referring to a kit model car made by a company called Covan Turbo who produced vehicles looking very similar to Porsche vehicles but at a cost of between £1-2,000.
It may be worth emphasising that from a strict textbook point-of-view, just having a prior criminal record does not necessarily lead to an inference of bad character. There is in criminal law the concept of 'effective good character', where the defence argues for exclusion of adverse character evidence or a favourable direction from the bench on the basis that the prior criminal record is not relevant, either because the nature of the offending is different or because the offending is not recent.
In Jeremy's case, he admitted the caravan break-in, it was recent, and he could not overcome this by arguing that he had long-ago confessed to his parents, paid the money back (or was on his way to doing so), and had made other conspicuous efforts at rehabilitation. Thus, the only line of argument the defence had would have been to say that the caravan break-in should either be excluded altogether or subject to a careful direction to the jury from the judge on the basis that it involved radically different offending to murder. To be frank, I can understand why an experienced trial counsel like Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., would take the view: 'least said the better'. You are never going to polish that problem away. It is what it is.
The other problem Jeremy has is that if he has admitted to the break-in, this means that on at least one point, Julie was telling the truth - by Jeremy's own admission. Not only that, she was telling the truth to her own detriment, since she was involved as his accomplice. Yet Jeremy refutes (note: refutes, not just denies) everything else she says about him that is incriminating. Maybe, as I have speculated above, Jeremy and his legal team had no choice but to pursue a blunt, unsophisticated strategy of refutation, but why is she telling the truth about one thing and not the rest?
The flip side of that of course is that if Jeremy is guilty, why would he admit to the break-in? Why not just continue to deny it? Ironically, you could argue that his admission implies innocence of the later more serious incident, since he had nothing to gain by admitting it and did so greatly to his own detriment.
Two possibilities to consider (I don't pretend these are exhaustive):
(i). Julie was telling the truth in a literal sense, and Jeremy did say most or all of these things or things very much like it. But Jeremy was teasing/joking and she has exaggerated and taken what he said out of context. This means she has either made a very grave mistake under the influence of pressures from the family and police, or she has lied by omission. Jeremy continues to protest his innocence, and may or may not be innocent, since Julie's truthfulness can be considered separate and independent of the fact of what actually occurred at the farmhouse that night.
OR
(ii). She was in on it all along - what I call a 'constructive accomplice'. She saw the tide turning, and under the influence of the family and police, switched sides and gave evidence against Jeremy. Her earlier collusion with Jeremy has been concealed - hence the non-disclosure controversy. Jeremy continues to protest his innocence because he knows that, although he is guilty, Julie cannot confirm this without also confirming her deeper involvement. Instead, Julie has presented a story in which she is only semi-involved as Jeremy's confidant after-the-fact and also able to contextualise as incriminating conversations that took place with Jeremy before-the-fact.
