A JURY who convicted former social worker Andrew Hunter of strangling
his pregnant wife with a dog's lead had ample evidence before them to
re- turn a verdict of guilty of murder, three Judges ruled yesterday.
Lord Emslie, Lord Justice General, sitting with Lords Cowie and Clyde
at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, rejected Hunter's appeal.
Lord Emslie said: ''In our judgment this was not a narrow case. We are
certainly persuaded that the evidence before the jury was not only
sufficient but ample and eloquent of the guilt of the appellant.''
Hunter, 37, of Dundee Street, Carnoustie, was convicted by majority
verdict at the High Court in Dundee last August. He had lodged a special
defence of alibi.
His 30-year-old wife, Lynda, a social worker, disappeared from home in
August 1987. Her car was found in a Manchester street two days later.
Her body was found six months later in Melville Lower Wood, Ladybank,
Fife.
Lord Emslie said the Appeal Court also rejected criticism of the trial
Judge's charge to the jury. It was claimed by Mr Lionel Daiches, QC for
Hunter, that the trial Judge, Lord Brand, had misdirected the jury in
law by omitting to refer to Hunter's evidence in relation to certain
statements which he made to the police.
Mr Daiches earlier told the court that the evidence relied on by the
Crown ''pointed the finger of suspicion'' but that evidence fell far
short of the standards the law required which was proof ''beyond
reasonable doubt.''
He argued that there was no forensic evidence to link Hunter with the
assault and murder of his wife. All the Crown evidence showed was a
''possibility'' of Hunter having committed the crime. All the Crown
evidence was circumstantial.
Lord Cowie commented that the evidence of a witness who saw a man
leaving a light-coloured hatchback car and carrying a large bundle into
a wood, coupled with witnesses who shortly before claimed they saw
Hunter in a similar car accompanied by a woman could be said to ''drive
a horse and cart'' through his alibi.
Why are you making commenting on HeraldScotland only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereCommments are closed on this article