Jeremy's team wanted to question JM about the contract that she had with the NOTW. As I understood it,Jeremy's solicitor did not have the contract to hand as evidence and so therefore the Judge ruled that JM could not be questioned/cross examined on the issue so therefore she did not have to take the stand after all. I'm certain that NGB could explain it all better when he is next on the forum.
JM returned to England for the 2002 appeal because the Court of Appeal had given leave for her to be cross examined about the NoW contract. The defence had information that the contract had in fact been concluded before the trial and that JM had therefore lied when she gave assurances during the trial that she had not concluded any deal with the press and had no intention of doing so. The defence had information that a copy of the contract itself was held by the solicitor who had acted for JM. The defence applied to the Court of Appeal for an order requiring the solicitor to produce the document. This application was refused. On her arrival in England JM provided a statement to the prosecution (it is posted here) in which she said she could not remember when the contract had been agreed with the NoW. Faced with the refusal of the application the defence would not have been able to challenge JM upon the basis of having proof on the basis of the document itself. There was therefore no benefit in cross examining her.
I do understand that more recently a copy of the contract, or at least a letter from the NoW referring to it, has been obtained. If there is a referral to the Court of Appeal I am sure there will be a further application for JM to be called for cross examination. That was certainly the intention of Simon McKay. He wanted to cross examine her in relation to the NoW contract, the circumstances in which she was initially interviewed and handled by the police, and the circumstances surrounding the deal with the bank not to prosecute her for fraud.
