THE Crown issued a full, public apology yesterday in the Nat Fraser case, but insisted that his conviction for murdering his estranged wife should stand.
Defence lawyers have complained this week to the Court of Criminal Appeal that evidence which could have undermined the prosecution's case against Fraser, 48, had not been disclosed before his trial in 2003 and was not heard by the jury.
At the o
pening of the Crown's reply yesterday, the advocate-depute, John Beckett, QC, acknowledged a "deeply regrettable state of affairs" and said new procedures should prevent a repeat of what had happened.
However, Mr Beckett submitted that Fraser's appeal ought to be rejected, and added: "It remains the case that there was, and is, a compelling body of circumstantial evidence giving rise to an almost irresistible inference that he was, as the jury determined, guilty of being involved in the instigation of the murder of his wife, Arlene Fraser."
Mrs Fraser, 33, a mother of two, disappeared from her home in New Elgin, Moray, on 28 April 1998. At that time, she and her husband, a fruit and vegetable wholesaler, were living apart, and although he was suspected by the police, he had an alibi.
It was almost five years before he was put on trial.
The cornerstone of the prosecution's case was that Mrs Fraser's engagement, wedding and eternity rings had vanished with her, but then turned up several days later on a peg under a soap dish in the bathroom of her home. Earlier that day, Fraser had been at the house to see his children.
The Crown maintained the appearance of the rings proved Fraser had access to the body after the killing.
He was found guilty of the murder charge, by arranging the killing, and was jailed for life and ordered to serve a minimum of 25 years.
Last year, it emerged that in a pre-trial statement, PC Neil Lynch, now retired, had reported seeing rings in the bathroom on the night Mrs Fraser had been reported missing. An inquiry was set up, and a second officer, PC Julie Clark, gave a similar account.
Fraser was freed on bail to await an appeal. During this week's hearing, it was explained the Lynch statement had been left on the desk of the procurator-fiscal in Elgin, but he said he had not seen it and the information was not followed up, or disclosed to the defence.
Yesterday, Mr Beckett said: "I readily acknowledge that the circumstances of this case disclose a deeply regrettable state of affairs in the preparation of this trial by the Crown. I apologise for it on behalf of the Crown.
"There has been a fundamental change in the management of business, particularly in preparing for trial. I would suggest it is highly improbable that the circumstances that arose in this case could occur again."
Mr Beckett stressed the appeal by Fraser was based on information provided, albeit belatedly, by the Crown. He said there had been suggestions during the hearing that his position was that either Mr Lynch or PC Clark had lied deliberately about what was in the house on 28-29 April.
That was wrong, he said, adding: "Can I make my position clear? I submit that the court should refuse the appeal on the basis that it has not been demonstrated there has been a miscarriage of justice."
Mr Beckett argued that it was important to bear in mind what the totality of the evidence had been, and he began to outline a number of circumstances which, separately, may not have meant much but which, together, could carry an inference of guilt.
He said Fraser had been facing the cost of a divorce settlement, and he had threatened that if his wife was not going to be living with him, she would not be living with anyone.
Also, his alibi could be seen to have been deliberately set up, and on the night before Arlene disappeared, a close associate of Fraser had arranged in haste the purchase of a cheap car which the associate had stipulated must have a boot.
The hearing resumes next week.
