Man twice jailed for murder has conviction restored

A man who was twice found guilty of the same murder - and had both convictions quashed - has had his conviction "restored" following a Supreme Court ruling.

Stuart Layden was among five people convicted of murdering Ian Church, 40, outside the Bricklayers Arms pub in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, in 2012.

Court of Appeal judges overturned his conviction in 2015 and ordered a retrial - and in 2023 quashed a second conviction due to a procedural error.

Judges at the Supreme Court said a third trial risked "bringing the criminal justice system into disrepute" and could lead to "otherwise safe" convictions being "set aside on a technicality".

Lord Hamblen concluded that Layden's murder conviction would be "restored", and issues concerning bail and his surrender to custody would be dealt with by the Court of Appeal.

Layden, formerly of South Quay, Great Yarmouth, was first handed a life sentence for Mr Church's murder in April 2013.

He successfully appealed against the conviction in March 2015 and was rearraigned for a new trial six months later.

Layden was again found guilty in May 2016 and sentenced to almost nine years in prison.

In 2022, he applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to look at concerns around the timing of his retrial.

A defendant must be rearraigned - asked how they plead - within two months of an appeal.

In 2023, three appeal judges concluded he was not properly arraigned before a retrial at Norwich Crown Court in 2016, stating the failure was "entirely avoidable".

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) challenged the ruling at the Supreme Court in March, claiming the Court of Appeal had prioritised court processes over a fair trial.

Lawyers for Layden opposed the appeal, claiming that ignoring the two-month time limit would "effectively neuter the 'extra safeguard' Parliament intended to introduce in Court of Appeal-ordered retrials".

Earlier, five Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled in the CPS's favour.

In his ruling, Lord Hamblen said that while the law did not specify the consequences of failing to comply with procedural rules around the two-month arraignment period, invalidating proceedings entirely would be a "triumph of form over substance" and created the "perverse incentive" for a defendant to abscond or "do nothing"

"Parliament cannot fairly have intended total invalidity to follow from non-compliance with the procedural requirements," he added.

The 27-page judgment was supported by Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Stephens and Lady Simler.

Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.