Clearly this evidence is admissible, otherwise the judge would have cut it off, i.e. not admitted it. And there's no point in a witness repeating herself. So we can assume either for some strange reason it wasn't in CM's statement to her solicitor (very unlikely IMO), or it was and her counsel decided not to ask her questions that would lead to her saying these things. (So perhaps she did sack him?)
If I were writing this as a novel, I would have MG deciding to take the stand himself, and CM deciding to represent herself and then cross-examining him. (The second bit of that is surely unlikely, but I won't be surprised if the first bit happens and he decides to take the stand. JMO.)
I would say the chances of at least one of the defendants saying they no longer accept everything in the agreed statements made by her parents at the first trial, and that they are putting them to strict proof, i.e. requiring them to give evidence from the box and submit to cross-examination, are high.
Incidentally, her own (current) counsel, i.e. Tom Godfrey, can re-examine her on what she has said under cross-examination (whether by the crown, the judge, or her co-defendant). And since he acts on her instructions, he will have to do so if she tells him to.
