Friday, June 17, 2011
Nat Fraser retrial decision expected will Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton, and Lords Reed and Carloway sanction new trial, this is un-prosecutable
The Nat Fraser case continues to rumble on, even after his conviction was quashed.
The Crown Office under Team Mulholland wants another go.
Last time, they deliberately tried to rig the trial in their favour by withholding evidence from the defence and the jury.
Are they fit for purpose?
Does having ‘new faces’ from the same corrupt organisation make it all better in the eyes of the public?
I think we can all guess what their motivations in a re-trial are, trying to head off an investigation into their activities.
And there should be an investigation.
Nat Fraser will return to the Appeal Court in Edinburgh where submissions will continue after his defence team opposed the crown's application for a new prosecution.
In high profile cases like this which as well as having a legal aspect also have developed a media aspect as well, people and in this case I mean judges will tend to take the line of least resistance.
That means a re-trial.
Clear the decks and shove the problem onto someone else.
Can Nat Fraser get a fair trial in Scotland?
I would say no.
The Crown Office has ruined that.
Last month 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 they did not disclose evidence at the time.
Lord Hope who in my mind has the same standing as Lord Denning came to right decision in that case.
His judgment was absolutely flawless.
Scotland needs legal reform and to that end, we need our own Scottish Supreme Court to stand above the Appeal Court in Edinburgh.
And I want Lord Hope to head that up; the seven judges on the Appeal Court in Edinburgh have done enough damage.
I have also come to the conclusion that the Scottish Government needs a Deputy Justice Minister specifically tasked to head up judicial reform complete with a sub group.
Hand picked from the best human rights lawyers such as John Scott, who we would need to elevate to become a judge.
I would also like to put on that sub group a female judge who sits on the civil bench at Glasgow Sheriff Court as well, if she is still there.
Back to Fraser, the Supreme Court sent the case back to Scotland; the Prosecutors did not oppose the quashing of his conviction.
Not out of shame of what transpired in the Crown Office but rather to try and bury it and clear the decks to produce a fresh narrative of their ‘fairness’.
Last week saw a hearing held before Scotland's top judge, the Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton, and Lords Reed and Carloway.
They promptly saw the dark clouds on the horizon and the case was adjourned until today because parties needed more than one day to finish their discussions.
Fraser continues to be remanded in custody.
Did Nat Fraser kill his wife?
I don’t know, but given the Crown Office tried to rig the trial by withholding evidence this case is completely ruined for prosecution.
And we should reflect on the words of Lord Hope that in his opinion the outcome of the trial might have been different if the evidence hadn’t been withheld.
The entire prosecution case hung on a lie to get a man convicted.
UPDATE, its gone for a retrial as expected.
George Laird was right again.
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University