Arlene Fraser

[neilsermk1]

Whats the score with the conviction for the murder of Arlene Fraser being overturned by the court of appeal in England. I thought Scotland and England has separate judiciaries. Can anyone explain in simple terms please:confused

[NickInTheNorth]

Final court of appeal for scottish cases is the UK supreme court, so after any Scottish appeals process cases can go to the uk supreme court.

And in this case it was an appeal based on the European Human Rights legislation

[~~~Tides~~~]

An appeal can be made to the UK Supreme Court in London in all civil matters (ie. from the Court of Session in Edinburgh). In criminal matters the High Court of Justiciary Appeal Court in Edinburgh is the final court of criminal appeal in Scotland, except and only on the basis so-called 'devolution' points, in which case the Supreme Court in London has to hear the case. These only relate to a claim that a public authority (in criminal cases, the prosecution) overstepped their powers in terms of the Scotland Act 1998, that is that an act is either contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, or the act related to powers that are reseved to Westminster (eg. defence, immigration, constitutional matters). Before it was the Supreme Court it was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (essentially the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords by another name). The High Court in Edinburgh should be the last court of criminal appeal in Scotland (as it had been since time immemorial up to 1998 and the enactment of the Scotland Act), however with many appeals now having an element of human right in them, the Supreme Court has now in effect taken over this role.

There are only two judges trained in Scots law that sit in the Supreme Court. Which raises the question of should two judges in London be able to overrule potentially all the top judges in Edinburgh.

In Nat Frasers case, his claim was that the prosecution in the original trial did not disclose to his defence team the fact that there was some evidence to suggest that the rings found in the bathroom had already been in the house prior to the disappearence of Arlene. This was a major part of the prosecution case, so if this evidence was disclosed to the defence (as the prosecution are under a duty to do so), then the defence could have argued against the case much more effectively and the jury may have placed less reliance on the evidence of the rings, and may have aquitted him. Consequently, Nat asserted in the supreme court that the actions of the prosecution led to a breach of his Article 6 right to a fair trial.

The sole issue for the determination of the Supreme court was whether his original trial was less fair, which they obviously thought it had been prejudiced. That's my understanding of it anyway.

(He is not being let off completely though, there will probably be a retrial)

[NickInTheNorth]

Now then tides, which bit of your erudite response was in simple terms...

[~~~Tides~~~]

Well you tell me which bit wasn't simple and I will rephrase it.

Your post wasn't strictly accurate and didn't answer the question of what the score was with Nat Fraser getting his conviction quashed, as asked by the OP.

[nechtan50]

The question remains though is he guilty or not?

[JD6400]

The question remains though is he guilty or not?

If there is a retrial that is up to a jury to decide!

[bekisman]

We're not permitted an opinion?

[mi16]

Your opinion makes no odds without knowing the full facts of the case.
How could the man be granted a fair retrial now is puzzling me, I thought you had to have little or no knowledge of the case prior to the trial to be a member of the jury?
The whole country has heard about the case in one way or another.
Of course i could have the rules totally wrong

[Mystical Potato Head]

Your opinion makes no odds without knowing the full facts of the case.
How could the man be granted a fair retrial now is puzzling me, I thought you had to have little or no knowledge of the case prior to the trial to be a member of the jury?
The whole country has heard about the case in one way or another.
Of course i could have the rules totally wrong

Your opinion makes no odds without knowing the full facts of the case.

[bekisman]

Your opinion makes no odds without knowing the full facts of the case.
How could the man be granted a fair retrial now is puzzling me, I thought you had to have little or no knowledge of the case prior to the trial to be a member of the jury?
The whole country has heard about the case in one way or another.
Of course i could have the rules totally wrong
Is that your opinion?

[mi16]

sorry I dont follow

[gollach]

If he does get tried again and found guilty (that's allowed now double jeopardy is gone, isn't it?) would the time he has already served be taken off or would he have to start the sentence from day 1 once more?

[ducati]

Apparently, even if it was still the case, double jep. wouldn't be an issue because as his conviction was quashed (whatever that means) he would be deemed to have not been tried :confused

[neilsermk1]

Thanks Tides that was a very concise answer, and in fairly simple terms. Your query as to why the only 2 judges in England versed in Scots law should be able to overturn the decision of Scotland's highest criminal court is extremely valid.

[achingale]

I just wish they could find her and lay her to rest.

[mi16]

I just wish they could find her and lay her to rest.

Your going on the assumption that she is dead though.