No charges against widow of a former senior Leicestershire police officer who committed suicide

“Contrary to Ciaran's view that in Mr Fraser's absence, Mrs Fraser could not have been tried I suggest that it would be fairly easy (given enough resources and a 12 month investigation) to prove that Mrs Fraser was somewhere else at the time the offending car went through the speed camera. Similarly, using the speed camera images and video recordings from every other street CCTV camera in the area it would be possible to establish who was driving. Just ask Mr & Mrs Huhne!

The couple weren't charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and as married people they could not be forced to give evidence against each other. The CPS must have considered the possibility that the couple could have opted to be tried separately anyway so there must have been evidence sufficient to convict each of them individually. The CPS statement to LM made no reference to their "evidence test" which appears not to have failed.

In July 2012 the CPS gleefully made a printed press release naming Mr and Mrs Fraser and giving the time, date and place of their first court appearance. This ensured maximum adverse publicity and embarrassment. This press release is still on thCPS website. No such press release is to be found relating to the decision not to prosecute Mrs Fraser. I wish Ciaran would have responded to my previous assertion that he had to go asking to find out what was happening because I suspect that this poor decision was one that the CPS knew was wrong and wanted to conceal.

Bapcav and Marog have, in my view, identified the real public interest. Mrs Fraser should have been prosecuted. Either her name would have been cleared or she would have been convicted. In the event that she was convicted, her husband's death and the impact of her imprisonment would have on her children are matters of mitigation to be put to the judge before sentence.”

“@ Reubedube,

I think Ciaran's clarification of Graham's comment has offered some clarification. It would have been helpful if the CPS had cited insufficient evidence in their statement.”

“Marog: A somewhat belated response to your post of Sunday 10 March. Computer problems.

We are at one regarding police corruption, I too have no time for it, so we do not differ on that point.
That you recognise the distinction I make is more important to me than whether or not you agree with me. The right to agree or disagree with others is of course a right we all have.

However, since you agree with 'bapcav's view that "The policewoman should definitely have been brought to trial". ("The CPS were totally wrong not to do so if there was sufficient evidence"). I can respond to both you and bapcav at the same time on that point.

"if there was sufficient evidence" ? Is that not the crucial point ? Neither you, bapcav nor myself know whether or not there was sufficient evidence. On what grounds can the CPS be criticised on that particular point ? How can anyone state "The policewoman should definitely have been brought to trial", when not knowing whether there was evidence available to support such a trial ?

Before anyone else accuses me of presenting a biased view on this topic because I 'supposedly' always defend the police in some people's eyes, I would like to make it quite clear that simply is
incorrect. As in all walks of life there are good and bad, and whatever their status, those who fail to conform with the laws of our society should expect to face the consequences.”

“Thanks for the clarification Ciaran.”

“Graham LE8 - I think you're correct on that score. I don't believe a trial could have reasonably gone ahead without Mr Fraser.
I would guess that influenced the CPS decision.
However it wasn't referred to in their statement.
In retrospect I should have pressed for an interview with them to ask them about it. At the time I felt their statement was sufficiently clear.
(Ciaran the crime reporter)”

“The latter. I find any kind of abuse of power pretty reprehensible.”

“Marog : "Suggestions of police corruption and cover-ups raise my hackles."

Are you angry because you do not believe the police do this or because you believe they do and that makes you angry ?”

“@ Reubedube,

I see the distinction you are seeking to make. I'm not sure I agree with it.

I'm more inclined to agree with Bapcav in his clarification "The policewoman should definitely have been brought to trial. The CPS were totally wrong not to do so if there was sufficient evidence.

However, it might be correct for the judge to exercise compassion in sentencing if she were found guilty. That is a different thing altogether."

Apologies if you found my original posting a little intemperate. Suggestions of police corruption and cover-ups raise my hackles.”

“Whilst not advocating the withdrawal of the intended prosecution, one vital aspect neither mentioned in the LM article, nor by any of the commentors since, is that following the death of Mr Fraser, it would be impossible to explore all the circumstances of the alleged offence under oath and cross-examination.

It doesn't seem to me that Mrs Fraser & her children's welfare would be the only factor in arriving at this decision, perhaps there was an element of cost to the public purse and confidence in being able to gain a successful conviction involved?”

“Just to clarify my comments.

The policewoman should definitely have been brought to trial. The CPS were totally wrong not to do so if there was sufficient evidence.

However, it might be correct for the judge to exercise compassion in sentencing if she were found guilty. That is a different thing altogether.”