Nat Fraser had not received a fair trial when he was jailed in 2003 for murder of his estranged wife, Arlene, supreme court rules
A former fruit and vegetable trader who was jailed for the "evil, cold-blooded" murder of his estranged wife has had his conviction unanimously overturned by the supreme court.
The court ruled that the high court in Scotland should decide whether to order a fresh trial of Nat Fraser, 52, from Moray, after it emerged that significant evidence casting doubt on his guilt had been withheld from his original trial.
Fraser was jailed for a minimum of 25 years in 2003 for murdering his wife, Arlene, in April 1998. She was last seen waving her children off to school. Her body was never found and the jury at the high court in Edinburgh decided he was guilty of hiring a hitman to kill her, based on circumstantial evidence.
Five supreme court justices, sitting in London, ruled on Wednesday that his conviction was unsafe because the trial had not heard evidence that contradicted a key part of the prosecution case.
The Crown Office, Scotland's prosecution authority, said it would seek authority from the appeal court to bring a fresh case against Fraser. No decision has yet been made on whether to grant him bail.
Fraser had previously contested his conviction, losing his first appeal. Scotland's highest criminal appeal court refused to hear his second appeal on human rights grounds, and insisted the conviction was safe, but his lawyers succeeded in sending the case to the supreme court in London.
The court was given limited powers to overrule Scotland's separate judicial system in 2009, if a trial had breached the European convention on human rights. Fraser's lawyers successfully argued that the non-disclosure of evidence in his original trial breached his rights under article 6 of the convention.
The new evidence surrounded the discovery of his wife's rings. The jury in the murder trial was told the rings had disappeared from her bedroom and later been placed in the bathroom by Fraser after the murder to suggest she left them there.
But there was evidence, not disclosed to his defence or at the original trial, that the rings had never left the house and were in the bathroom on the night she disappeared.
Lord Hope, a former lord president of the Scottish judiciary who now sits on the supreme court, said: "The court holds that the trial would have been significantly different if the undisclosed evidence had been available. There is a real possibility that the evidence would have been sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether [Fraser] placed the rings in the bathroom. If that were so, the jury's verdict would have been bound … to have been different."
Arlene Fraser's family said it supported the Crown Office's bid for a fresh trial: "Today's decision by the supreme court is bitterly disappointing. We accept today's decision. However, we fully support the Crown's intention to seek authority to bring fresh proceedings against Nat Fraser for Arlene's murder."
The supreme court heard that two investigations had since been carried out into the original police investigation. Maggie Scott QC, Fraser's defence counsel, told the hearing: "The essential question is whether or not the appellant received a fair trial."