The fate of the father accused of murder his wife is now in the hands of the public.

Adrian Prout who denies the charge, watched silently as the jury at Bristol Crown Court was sent out to consider its verdict with the words of Mr Justice Nigel Davis ringing in their ears

The judge told them they must be sure 47-year-old Prout who shared a farmhouse in Redmarley with Kate until her disappearance on November 5 2007 was responsible for her death before convicting him.

He told them they must be satisfied Mrs Prout, 55, is no longer alive and she did not die as a result of an accident or suicide.

With Prout family and friends looking on, Mr Davis summed up the prosecution and defences evidence from the trial which began on January 12 this year.

He said: “The prosecution say to you that Adrian Prout intended to kill her. They say there is no other realistic explanation for her disappearance.

“The defence case say the prosecution case is one of speculation when, why and how Kate Prout could have been killed is not explained.

“They say it is only theory as to what happened on November 5, 2007. Now is the time for you to make your minds up.

“You must not walk away from this court room unsure about your decision.”

Earlier in his summing up, the jury was told to weight the police belief that she was murdered against the fact that no body has ever been found.

Summing up in the fourth week of the trial at Bristol Crown Court Judge Mr Justice Davis reminded the jurors that no one had seen or heard from Kate Prout since she disappeared on November 5, 2007.

“The prosecution believe she is dead and that she was murdered, and that Adrian Prout, her husband, murdered her,” Justice Davis said.

But he told the seven women and four men of the jury there were three points on which they had to be sure.

“Those were, was Kate Prout dead? Was she murdered?

“And, if so, was she murdered by the defendant Adrian Prout?

“It is the prosecution which leads this case.

“Adrian Prout does not have to prove he is innocent, he doesn’t have to prove anything about how and why Kate Prout has disappeared. He doesn’t have to prove anything at all.”

Justice Davis, whose summing up ran for three hours yesterday (Tues) warned the jury it was an “inference” that Adrian Prout killed his wife.

“It is really what lawyers call circumstantial evidence,” the judge said.

“There is evidence of circumstances relating to Kate Prout, and relating to here disappearance, and relating to Adrian Prout himself.”

However, the judge said: “Circumstantial evidence is by no means necessarily an inferior kind of evidence.”

Judge Davis said no body of Kate Prout had ever been found.

“It is entirely your call,” he told the jury.

“After Kate Prout’s disappearance her husband had at first seemed unconcerned,” the judge said.

“Was this a bit of cool and skilful acting on behalf of the defendant or is it somebody who seemed unconcerned just because he was unconcerned, thinking Kate had gone off with friends?”

The judge warned the jury to treat witness Di Bellamy’s evidence “with caution”.

It was Mrs Bellamy who claimed during the trial that Adrian Prout said: “If you do the crime, you do the time,” a statement which the defendant has strenuously denied.

The judge will continue his summary of the case this morning (Wed) before the jury is asked to agree a verdict.