Julie Mugford's 'Verbal' agreement vs 'Signed' agreement prior to verdict.

[Nigel]

Julie Mugford heard about the guilty verdict while staying in the Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, London paid for by The News of the World.

There must have been a 'verbal' agreement in place, otherwise what the hell was she doing there?, instead of being at home?

Reading this:

http://www.contractsandagreements.co.uk/law-and-verbal-agreements.html

'Many people are not aware that verbal agreements are in many cases as legally binding as written contracts. Verbal contracts can be upheld by a court if someone decides to breach the agreement, although without written terms and conditions it may be difficult to prove'

So what is there wasn't a 'signed/written contract' agreement.?

The 'verbal' agreement is enough to make Mugford in contempt of court.

nb
is you want to discuss whether Jeremy had a 'verbal' agreement in place, start your own thread, don't hijack this one.

[Nigel]

.

[ngb1066]

Julie Mugford heard about the guilty verdict while staying in the Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, London paid for by The News of the World.

There must have been a 'verbal' agreement in place, otherwise what the hell was she doing there?, instead of being at home?

Reading this:

http://www.contractsandagreements.co.uk/law-and-verbal-agreements.html

'Many people are not aware that verbal agreements are in many cases as legally binding as written contracts. Verbal contracts can be upheld by a court if someone decides to breach the agreement, although without written terms and conditions it may be difficult to prove'

So what is there wasn't a 'signed/written contract' agreement.?

The 'verbal' agreement is enough to make Mugford in contempt of court.

nb
is you want to discuss whether Jeremy had a 'verbal' agreement in place, start your own thread, don't hijack this one.

Although I accept that an oral agreement would have been legally binding, there was in fact a written agreement in advance of the trial, negotiated on JM's behalf by her solicitor.  The defence became aware of this during the trial but did not have proof.  They raised it with the judge, who ordered the prosecution to make inquiries.  JM lied about it, saying she had made no agreement and did not intend to make any agreement with a newspaper. 

[Steve_uk]

Although I accept that an oral agreement would have been legally binding, there was in fact a written agreement in advance of the trial, negotiated on JM's behalf by her solicitor.  The defence became aware of this during the trial but did not have proof.  They raised it with the judge, who ordered the prosecution to make inquiries.  JM lied about it, saying she had made no agreement and did not intend to make any agreement with a newspaper.

It was the Crown (I assume represented by Anthony Arlidge QC) which told the Defence privately that Julie wasn't going to sell her story. The reason I assume that this wasn't discussed in open court was that Jeremy had the same deal with the same newspaper for the higher sum of £40000 at 1985 prices.

[Nigel]

It was the Crown (I assume represented by Anthony Arlidge QC) which told the Defence privately that Julie wasn't going to sell her story. The reason I assume that this wasn't discussed in open court was that Jeremy had the same deal with the same newspaper for the higher sum of £40000 at 1985 prices.

Sorry, I don't believe a word you say, are you 'blood lined' to Mugford?

[Steve_uk]

Sorry, I don't believe a word you say, are you 'blood lined' to Mugford?

No but we shared the same employer at the same time in Inner London, though as I have stated before I never met her.

[Nigel]

In the name of Jesus Christ Our Lord, may Justice be done this Easter Weekend 2018.

[ngb1066]

It was the Crown (I assume represented by Anthony Arlidge QC) which told the Defence privately that Julie wasn't going to sell her story. The reason I assume that this wasn't discussed in open court was that Jeremy had the same deal with the same newspaper for the higher sum of £40000 at 1985 prices.

You are completely wrong on this.  The defence were not told privately.  The matter was discussed with the judge in chambers, i.e. without the jury present.  A deal by Julie Mugford with the press was wholly improper, whereas a deal by JB as defendant was wholly proper, for reasons explained and discussed here long ago.  Thus the reason for not dealing with this before the jury was nothing to do with JB's deal, it was because JM lied about the deal and at that time the defence team did not have evidence sufficient to cross examine her on it.  You consistently whitewash JM's conduct which is your right, but please do not try to misrepresent what you know to be the facts.

[Nigel]

You are completely wrong on this.  The defence were not told privately.  The matter was discussed with the judge in chambers, i.e. without the jury present.  A deal by Julie Mugford with the press was wholly improper, whereas a deal by JB as defendant was wholly proper, for reasons explained and discussed here long ago.  Thus the reason for not dealing with this before the jury was nothing to do with JB's deal, it was because JM lied about the deal and at that time the defence team did not have evidence sufficient to cross examine her on it.  You consistently whitewash JM's conduct which is your right, but please do not try to misrepresent what you know to be the facts.

In your humble opinion, if MUGFORD had a 'verbal' agreement with 'The News of the World' PRIOR TO VERDICT, WOULD MUGFORD be in contept of court?

thanks

[ngb1066]

In your humble opinion, if MUGFORD had a 'verbal' agreement with The News of the World PRIOR TO VERICT, WOULD MUGFORD be in contept of court?

thanks

She could be, but she could also be guilty of perverting the course of justice.  As I have said before, she not only had a verbal agreement, she also had a written agreement, according to evidence now available.

[Nigel]

She could be, but she could also be guilty of perverting the course of justice.  As I have said before, she not only had a verbal agreement, she also had a written agreement, according to evidence now available.

So to confirm, MUGFORD is either 'in contempt of Court' and or 'guilty of perverting the course of justice' ?

ps
not interested in 'written agreement'.

[ngb1066]

So to confirm, MUGFORD is either 'in contempt of Court' and or 'guilty of perverting the course of justice' ?

ps
not interested in 'written agreement'.

She could be.

[Nigel]

She could be.

COULD SOMEONE PLEASE PUT THIS ON RECORD.

THANK YOU.

[Steve_uk]

You are completely wrong on this.  The defence were not told privately.  The matter was discussed with the judge in chambers, i.e. without the jury present.  A deal by Julie Mugford with the press was wholly improper, whereas a deal by JB as defendant was wholly proper, for reasons explained and discussed here long ago.  Thus the reason for not dealing with this before the jury was nothing to do with JB's deal, it was because JM lied about the deal and at that time the defence team did not have evidence sufficient to cross examine her on it.  You consistently whitewash JM's conduct which is your right, but please do not try to misrepresent what you know to be the facts.

Don't tell me that in the climate of the 1980s nobody could foresee that Julie Mugford was going to sell her story, general public or legal fraternity. Of course it was wrong, as were all the others, but once negotiated she could at least walk the streets freely without being pestered by any Tom, Dick or Harry who wanted to use her presence in the court case to gain an exclusive story.

[ngb1066]

Don't tell me that in the climate of the 1980s nobody could foresee that Julie Mugford was going to sell her story, general public or legal fraternity. Of course it was wrong, as were all the others, but once negotiated she could at least walk the streets freely without being pestered by any Tom, Dick or Harry who wanted to use her presence in the court case to gain an exclusive story.

Yes, but she should not have lied about it when asked during the trial.  This is a serious matter.