Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[HaveHope]

Fraser to wait for retrial decision
Published on Wednesday 8 June 2011 20:12


A businessman whose conviction for murdering his estranged wife was ruled unsafe will have to wait at least another week to learn if he will face a retrial.


The Appeal Court in Edinburgh will next hear submissions in the case of Nat Fraser on Friday, June 17.

Fraser, a former fruit and vegetable seller from Elgin, Moray, was given a life sentence with a 25-year minimum term after being found guilty of killing his wife Arlene in 1998. Her body has never been found.

The 52-year-old returned to court in Edinburgh two weeks after a ruling from the UK's highest court.

Five judges at the Supreme Court in London unanimously agreed with Fraser's assertion that Scottish prosecutors breached his right to a fair trial in 2003 because of the non-disclosure of evidence. They sent the case back to Scotland, saying judges there must decide if his conviction should be quashed and whether he should be tried again.

Addressing the hearing in Edinburgh, advocate depute Alex Prentice QC told three senior judges that the Crown does not oppose the quashing of Fraser's conviction. But prosecutors asked the court to order a retrial in his case.

Fraser's defence team, led by Maggie Scott QC, opposed the application for a fresh prosecution to be held.

Details of the hearing, which lasted all day, cannot be reported for legal reasons. Fraser remains in custody.

Mother-of-two Ms Fraser was 33-years-old when she vanished from her home on April 28, 1998. Following a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh, Fraser was convicted of murdering her but has always maintained his innocence.

He lost an appeal against conviction in 2008 and exhausted all options open to him in Scotland. But he ultimately succeeded in having his case heard by the Supreme Court.

http://www.forfardispatch.co.uk/news/scottish-headlines/fraser_to_wait_for_retrial_decision_1_1666660

 
 

[HaveHope]

Peter Jones: Supreme Court row leaves sour taste


Published Date: 07 June 2011
By Peter Jones
In THE great row about the UK Supreme Court and the allegations about whether it is "aggressively intervening" in Scottish legal affairs, one question has not been asked: was it right or wrong to over-rule the Scottish Appeal Court and rule that the conviction of Nat Fraser was unsafe?
It is a very important question because from the answer flow other, more disturbing, questions. Are human rights safe in the hands of Scottish judges? Are they up to speed with modern, internationally-accepted standards of jurisprudence? Or is there something just a little bit rotten at the heart of the Scottish judicial system? I fear that the answers to those questions may be, in order, no, no and yes.

Let's remember what the case was about. Fraser had been convicted of murdering his wife Arlene, despite the fact that her body was never found, no murder scene was ever located, and no murder weapon was ever identified. There being no forensic evidence, the case against him was thin, to say the least.

A critical piece of evidence concerned Arlene's rings - wedding, engagement, and eternity - that had been found in the bathroom of her home. They were said to be not there when police initially searched the house when her disappearance was first reported, but to have appeared a week later, the implication being that Fraser had placed them there.

The prosecutor told the jury that Fraser must have taken them from his wife's dead body and put them in the bathroom to make it look as though she had decided to walk away from the life that she had there.

It was, he said, the "cornerstone" of the case against the accused, and trial judge told members of the jury that if they decided Fraser had not placed them there, then they could not convict him.

Just before his appeal against conviction was heard, it emerged that a police officer who initially searched the house had said in a statement that he had visited the house three times just after Arlene disappeared. He believed he had seen wedding, engagement and eternity-type rings in the bathroom.

The non-disclosure of this statement to the defence became part of the case put to the Scottish Appeal Court and, eventually, the cornerstone of the appeal to the Supreme Court. By this time, a second police officer had also recalled seeing the rings long before they were supposedly replaced. The defence team argued that if it had known about the police statements, then it would have produced them at the trial where it might have resulted in a not guilty verdict.

The Scottish Appeal Court rejected this argument.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics...ones-Supreme-Court-row.6780792.jp

[HaveHope]

A group of experts has been established to look at the impact of the UK Supreme Court on Scotland's legal system.

First Minister Alex Salmond set up the review after raising his concerns about the role of the London-based court.

The four members appointed to the review group include a former solicitor general for Scotland.

Their initial findings will be debated at the Scottish Parliament in time for the summer recess.

The debate over the Supreme Court was brought to life by its decision that Nat Fraser's conviction for murdering his wife Arlene in Elgin was unsafe.

The court had previously cast doubt on a large number of criminal convictions in Scotland in a ruling which came to be known as the Cadder judgement.

This concerned the rights of a suspect to legal representation during questioning by police.
Political debate

The experts who were appointed to the expert group are Lord McCluskey, a former solicitor general; Sir Gerald Gordon, a former professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University; Charles Stoddart, who has acted as interim Sheriff Principal; and Professor Neil Walker, an expert in constitutional law.

The first minister has asked them to look at the roles of the High Court of Judiciary in Edinburgh and the UK Supreme Court in London, and to advise on possible options for reform.

Mr Salmond said: "This expert group is a stellar cast of some of the leading names in the Scottish legal firmament.
Lord Hope Supreme Court justice Lord Hope has been criticised by politicians

"We have called upon specialists of the highest calibre and asked them to use all their experience to bring forward proposals for reform."

The first minister defended Scotland's independent legal system, which he said was being affected by "aggressive" intervention from a different jurisdiction.

But members of the Scottish government have been criticised for politicizing the discussion of the Supreme Court, and particularly for focussing on the role of a Scottish judge at the court, Lord Hope.

A spokesman for the Scotland Office, part of the UK government, said evidence on the issue from a previous review had been passed on to the Scottish government.

The spokesman said: "The responses to the expert group set up by the advocate general showed overwhelming support for the Supreme Court maintaining its important role in devolution issues.

"There has been a great deal of misinformation about the role of the Supreme Court in recent weeks.

"The idea that the independence of Scots law is under threat is simply wrong."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13656147

[nugnug]

id like to now what they plan to have a retrial with.

[admin]

id like to now what they plan to have a retrial with.

Scotch mist and mountain scenery nugnug

[HaveHope]

Yip, I'd like to know too but if they can magic something up Im sure they'd have a go at it, its amazing what a persuasive prosecutor can do. 

I think he should have been bailed till the next hearing.  9 days might not seem a lot to us on the outside but I dare say it means a lot to folks on the inside.

They hate admitting they've got it wrong, again  The prosecuters will be fighting tooth and nail to get this case back into court, but I think its all show as they have heehaw and they know it, so they do what they do and drag it out.

[nugnug]

i dont think they will want to get it back in to court i think this is just face saveing.

[HaveHope]

Nat Fraser left in jail as crown seeks retrial for murder of his wife Arlene
Jun 9 2011 Gordon Mcilwraith


Businessman Nat Fraser may face a new trial for the murder of his wife Arlene 13 years ago, it was revealed yesterday.

Prosecutors have accepted his conviction must be quashed after the UK Supreme Court ruled he did not receive a fair trial.

But they yesterday asked the Appeal Court in Edinburgh to put Fraser, 52, on trial again. He remains behind bars.

Fraser, from New Elgin, Moray, was jailed for a minimum of 25 years in 2003 for allegedly hiring a hitman to kill mum-of-two Arlene, 33.

Advocate depute Alex Prentice, QC, said yesterday: "The Crown doesn't oppose the quashing of the conviction.

"But I make an application for authority to bring a new prosecution."

Arlene's dad Hector and her sister Carol were in court with other members of the family yesterday.

The judges banned the reporting of any submissions made by prosecution or defence lawyers until a final ruling is made. They will resume the hearing a week on Friday. Meanwhile, Fraser's conviction is still to be formally quashed.

The move follows a Supreme Court ruling that Fraser suffered a miscarriage of justice.Five law lords stressed the jury's verdict might have been different if crucial evidence from a police officer about Arlene's rings had been revealed.

Arlene, who vanished from her home in April 1998 shortly after waving her children off to school, was due to meet a divorce lawyer that day but never made the appointment.

No trace of her body has ever been found.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/06/09/nat-fraser-left-in-jail-as-crown-seeks-retrial-for-murder-of-his-wife-arlene-86908-23189972/

[nugnug]

only one piece of credible evidence witch has now been discredited how can there be a retrial

[nugnug]

Nat Fraser left in jail as crown seeks retrial for murder of his wife Arlene
Jun 9 2011 Gordon Mcilwraith


Businessman Nat Fraser may face a new trial for the murder of his wife Arlene 13 years ago, it was revealed yesterday.

Prosecutors have accepted his conviction must be quashed after the UK Supreme Court ruled he did not receive a fair trial.

But they yesterday asked the Appeal Court in Edinburgh to put Fraser, 52, on trial again. He remains behind bars.

Fraser, from New Elgin, Moray, was jailed for a minimum of 25 years in 2003 for allegedly hiring a hitman to kill mum-of-two Arlene, 33.

Advocate depute Alex Prentice, QC, said yesterday: "The Crown doesn't oppose the quashing of the conviction.

"But I make an application for authority to bring a new prosecution."

Arlene's dad Hector and her sister Carol were in court with other members of the family yesterday.

The judges banned the reporting of any submissions made by prosecution or defence lawyers until a final ruling is made. They will resume the hearing a week on Friday. Meanwhile, Fraser's conviction is still to be formally quashed.

The move follows a Supreme Court ruling that Fraser suffered a miscarriage of justice.Five law lords stressed the jury's verdict might have been different if crucial evidence from a police officer about Arlene's rings had been revealed.

Arlene, who vanished from her home in April 1998 shortly after waving her children off to school, was due to meet a divorce lawyer that day but never made the appointment.

No trace of her body has ever been found.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/06/09/nat-fraser-left-in-jail-as-crown-seeks-retrial-for-murder-of-his-wife-arlene-86908-23189972/

no comments allowed.

i wonder why.

[HaveHope]

More reading material that explains a bit more for readers who are unfamiliar with the case..........

sccrcunjustdecisions.myfastforum.org/archive/nat-fraser-shockin-justice

[nugnug]

well if there was a retrial and he was found guilty he has allready got grounds for appeal thanks to alex salmond.

[Toth]

It was a "missing persons" case initially. Missing under unusual and alarming circumstances perhaps, but "missing". One of the most important things to be determined when a female goes missing are "personal items" such as handbags, outfits, jewelry, medicines, credit cards, cash, etc.

Therefore a written notation should be entered as to such things as clothes in closets, suitcases in home, jewelry boxes, rings, etc. I do not see how the police can gaze about the house and not make a formal notation of what is significant. Any broken furniture? Any broken windows or doors?

QUERY: I see no need to dredge up any unfortunate circumstances involving the police officer who committed suicide, but does anyone know if it was in any way linked to this case?

[nugnug]

im not sure.

[HaveHope]

It was a "missing persons" case initially. Missing under unusual and alarming circumstances perhaps, but "missing". One of the most important things to be determined when a female goes missing are "personal items" such as handbags, outfits, jewelry, medicines, credit cards, cash, etc.

Therefore a written notation should be entered as to such things as clothes in closets, suitcases in home, jewelry boxes, rings, etc. I do not see how the police can gaze about the house and not make a formal notation of what is significant. Any broken furniture? Any broken windows or doors?

QUERY: I see no need to dredge up any unfortunate circumstances involving the police officer who committed suicide, but does anyone know if it was in any way linked to this case?

The following post may answer your question, posted by BW on the SMc forum....

Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 12:30 pm    Post subject:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Hi Scotkaz

Been doing some recent Investigations into Nat Frasers case myself and what I have found is startling.

Besides the two officers who now claim the rings were planted back into the house there was another two Officers who claimed the rings were there from the start.

Det Sgt Willie Robertson has never denied taking the rings to his office which would mean that even if Turnbull could claim not to have seen the statements from the other two.

There was also an officer who committed suicide "David Slessor" who had seen the rings in Robertson's desk.

This totally destroys the evidence from Turnbull that he did not know about the rings.

According to Nat's Solicitor, Robertson has never denied the evidence of the rings.

This case should have collapsed at trial never mind the appeal if the evidence about Nat Fraser placing the rings back into the house was the most cruacial evidence against him.

How can the appeal court conclude Fraser still had room to put the rings back after a week when clearly they were in Robertson's desk.

The only conclusion anyone else can come to would be Robertson must have placed the rings in the Bathroom a week later if he had them in his desk.

From what I have been told Robertson was in the House two or three times the day the rings re-appeared
http://shirleymckie.wonko.myfastforum.org/sutra3402.php