Man accused of murder faces possible third trial

A man who has been convicted twice for murder - and had both convictions quashed - may have to stand trial for a third time, the Supreme Court has heard.

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 in 2023 quashed a second conviction due to a procedural error.

At a hearing earlier, David Perry KC, for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), asked Supreme Court judges to allow another retrial – claiming Court of Appeal judges had prioritised court processes over a fair trial.

In written submissions, Mr Perry said: "This resulted in the total invalidity of the entire proceedings."

Mr 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.

Mr Layden was again found guilty in May 2016 and was 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.

Following the ruling, the CPS said it would consider appealing.

On Monday, in written submissions, Mr Perry added: "The purpose of the retrial provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act is to prevent potential injustice by allowing cases to be retried on their merits and thus avoid persons who are guilty escaping liability on a technicality."

Peter Wilcock KC, for Mr Layden, said ignoring the two-month time limit would "effectively neuter the 'extra safeguard' Parliament intended to introduce in Court of Appeal-ordered retrials".

In written submissions, Mr Wilcock said that if the prosecution's argument was correct, it means those involved in a trial could "subvert" the purpose of the legislation and "bypass a Parliament and Court of Appeal mandated time limit designed to achieve a speedy retrial and set their own timetable instead".

The hearing - before Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen, Lord Stephens and Lady Simler - was expected to conclude on Tuesday.

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