- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Fraser v Her Majesty's Advocate
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant was tried in January 2003 before the High Court of Justiciary in The City for the murder of the Appellant’s spouse (“the Deceased”), who vanished from their home at [Number] Main Street on 28 April 1998. On 29 January 2003 the jury convicted the Appellant and a life sentence with a 25-year punishment part was imposed.
A pivotal element of the circumstantial case concerned the apparent “re-appearance” of the Deceased’s wedding, engagement and eternity rings in the family bathroom on 7 May 1998. The indictment originally alleged that the Appellant planted the rings to mislead investigators, but that charge was withdrawn during trial. Nevertheless, the Crown presented the discovery of the rings as “the cornerstone” of its case, arguing that the Appellant had removed them from the Deceased’s body and later placed them in the bathroom.
After conviction, it emerged that, during a 3 July 2002 Crown precognition, Witness A (then a police constable) stated that he and Witness B (then a police constable) had seen jewellery, including rings, in the bathroom during police visits on the night of 28–29 April 1998—days before the rings were officially “discovered.” This information was neither recorded in notebooks nor disclosed to the defence or to Crown counsel who conducted the trial.
On disclosure of this material in March 2006, the Appellant lodged additional grounds of appeal alleging a miscarriage of justice based on (a) fresh evidence and (b) the Crown’s non-disclosure in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The Appeal Court heard the case over 13 days in November 2007, treated the matter solely as a “fresh evidence” appeal under section 106 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”), and refused the appeal on 6 May 2008.
The Appeal Court also refused to receive a devolution minute raising the Article 6 disclosure issue and later refused leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The Appellant petitioned the Supreme Court (successor to the Privy Council) for special leave under Schedule 6 of the Scotland Act 1998. Special leave was granted on 20 May 2010, leading to the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Crown’s failure to disclose Witness A’s and Witness B’s evidence violated the Appellant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR.
- Whether the Appeal Court, by applying the Cameron “fresh-evidence” test instead of the two-stage McInnes disclosure test, applied the correct legal standard.
- Whether, applying the proper test, the non-disclosure created a real possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict, amounting to a miscarriage of justice.
- What remedial powers the Supreme Court should exercise once a devolution issue is upheld, including whether to quash the conviction and remit for consideration of a retrial.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The undisclosed statements of Witness A and Witness B directly undermined the Crown’s “cornerstone” theory that the rings were planted on 7 May 1998, thereby materially weakening the prosecution case and strengthening the defence.
- The non-disclosure breached the Crown’s duty under Scots law and Article 6 ECHR, rendering the trial unfair.
- The Appeal Court erred by assessing the case solely under section 106 of the 1995 Act and the Cameron test, rather than applying the disclosure tests in McInnes v HM Advocate.
Respondent's Arguments
- Although the material should have been disclosed, the overall circumstantial and witness evidence remained sufficient to support the conviction.
- The Appeal Court had properly exercised its discretion under the statutory fresh-evidence framework, and any miscarriage was adequately considered under that regime.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| McInnes v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 7 | Two-stage test for disclosure: (1) materiality; (2) real possibility of different verdict. | Adopted as the governing standard; used to assess both disclosure and prejudice. |
| Allison v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 6 | Refusal to entertain a devolution minute constitutes a “determination” for Schedule 6 purposes. | Supported Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear the appeal. |
| McDonald v HM Advocate [2008] UKPC 46 | Same point as Allison regarding “determination.” | Cited as precedent for accepting jurisdiction. |
| Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43 | Confirmation of jurisdictional principles under Schedule 6. | Reinforced rationale for granting special leave. |
| HM Advocate v Murtagh [2009] UKPC 35 | Clarified materiality limb of the disclosure duty. | Quoted to explain the first limb of the McInnes test. |
| McLeod v HM Advocate (No 2) 1998 JC 67 | Historical source of the Crown’s common-law duty of disclosure. | Provided doctrinal background. |
| Slater v HM Advocate 1928 JC 94 | Early recognition of disclosure obligations. | Cited in discussion of duty’s origins. |
| Downie v HM Advocate 1952 JC 37 | Further authority on disclosure. | Referenced when tracing duty’s development. |
| Smith v HM Advocate 1952 JC 66 | Authority on Crown’s role and fairness. | Used to illustrate longstanding principles. |
| Sinclair v HM Advocate 2005 SC (PC) 28 | Scope of duty and limits on precognition disclosure. | Discussed in relation to Crown documents. |
| Rowe & Davis v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 1 | Non-disclosure may violate Article 6. | Cited for Convention incompatibility. |
| Edwards v UK (1993) 15 EHRR 417 | Same principle as Rowe & Davis. | Reinforced Article 6 analysis. |
| Dowsett v UK (2004) 38 EHRR 41 | Disclosure and fair trial standards. | Part of Convention jurisprudence. |
| Hay v HM Advocate [2011] SLT 293 | Example where undisclosed material did not alter verdict. | Illustrated practical application of McInnes. |
| Cameron v HM Advocate 1991 JC 252 | Threshold and consequences test for fresh-evidence appeals. | Applied by Appeal Court but held inadequate for disclosure cases. |
| Williamson v HM Advocate 1988 SCCR 56 | Supports Cameron approach. | Mentioned as precedent followed by Appeal Court. |
| Gallacher v HM Advocate 1951 JC 38 | Pre-statutory test for new evidence appeals. | Historical context for statutory evolution. |
| Elliott v HM Advocate 1995 JC 95 | Legislative history of section 106. | Background reference. |
| Green v HM Advocate 1983 SCCR 42 | Impact of Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 on appeal tests. | Provided context for reformulation of tests. |
| Megrahi v HM Advocate 2002 JC 99 | Weight of setting aside a jury verdict. | Quoted to show gravity of overturning convictions. |
| Kelly v HM Advocate [2006] SCCR 9 | Link between fair trial and miscarriage of justice. | Used to bridge Article 6 and section 106 language. |
| Coubrough’s Executrix v HM Advocate [2010] SLT 755 | Adoption of McInnes test for misdirection appeals. | Cited in debate over uniformity of tests. |
| Black v HM Advocate [2011] SLT 287 | Questioned use of McInnes in non-disclosure contexts. | Illustrated judicial divergence. |
| McCreight v HM Advocate [2009] SCCR 743 | When fresh evidence is overwhelmingly significant. | Guided discussion of remedy where trial would be fundamentally different. |
| R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 18 | “Miscarriage of justice” lacks fixed definition. | Referenced in statutory interpretation. |
| Bain v The Queen [2007] UKPC 33 | Example of quashing where fresh evidence transformed case. | Analogous in considering retrial discretion. |
| Dial v State of Trinidad & Tobago [2005] UKPC 4 | Fresh evidence exposing witness unreliability. | Illustrative of miscarriage analysis. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court first confirmed its jurisdiction, ruling that the Appeal Court’s refusal to entertain the devolution minute was itself a “determination,” permitting appellate review under Schedule 6 of the Scotland Act 1998.
Applying the McInnes framework, the Court undertook two distinct inquiries:
- Materiality Test. The undisclosed statements of Witness A and Witness B plainly might have materially weakened the Crown case or strengthened the defence. They directly contradicted the prosecution’s central theory that the rings re-appeared on 7 May 1998.
- Consequences Test. Assessing the actual conduct of the trial, the Court held there was a real possibility the jury would have reached a different verdict if the statements had been disclosed. The non-disclosure deprived the defence of crucial lines of cross-examination and underpinned a Crown address and judicial direction making the “ring” evidence decisive.
The Court contrasted this analysis with the Appeal Court’s reliance on the Cameron fresh-evidence test, finding that test both more stringent in threshold and differently directed, rendering it unsuitable for Article 6 disclosure breaches.
The Supreme Court concluded that the failure to disclose constituted a breach of the Appellant’s right to a fair trial and therefore a miscarriage of justice. Exercising its powers equivalent to those in section 118 of the 1995 Act, the Court allowed the appeal but remitted to a differently constituted Appeal Court to decide whether a new prosecution should be authorised under section 119.
Holding and Implications
HELD: The appeal is allowed; the conviction is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court of Justiciary (differently constituted) to determine whether to authorise a retrial and, thereafter, to quash the conviction.
Implications: The judgment re-affirms that non-disclosure of material evidence which might affect a jury’s verdict breaches Article 6 and triggers the McInnes analysis. It clarifies that Scottish appellate courts must apply the McInnes disclosure tests, not the stricter Cameron fresh-evidence test, when Article 6 issues arise. While significant for disclosure jurisprudence, the decision creates no new substantive legal test but mandates correct application of existing principles, directly impacting the parties and guiding future disclosure practice.
Alert