R v Mohammed Saddam Hussain & Anor
[2023] EWCA Crim 1100
Stuart Layden v R
25 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1207
Court of Appeal
Stuart Layden's murder conviction was overturned because the court that retried him didn't follow the rules about how quickly they had to start the new trial. The rules say the new trial must start within 2 months, and it didn't. Because the court broke the rules, the conviction was thrown out.
Key Facts
- •Stuart Layden was convicted of murder in May 2016 following a retrial.
- •The retrial was ordered after the Court of Appeal quashed his initial conviction.
- •The retrial indictment was served outside the two-month time limit specified in section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (CAA).
- •Layden was not arraigned on the fresh indictment within the two-month period.
- •The prosecution argued the failure to arraign was a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional bar.
- •The appellant argued the Crown Court lacked jurisdiction due to non-compliance with section 8 of the CAA.
- •The case hinges on the interpretation of sections 7 and 8 of the CAA, specifically whether the Crown Court's jurisdiction to retry is contingent upon fulfilling the requirements of section 8.
Legal Principles
The Crown Court's jurisdiction to retry a defendant following an appeal and order for retrial under section 7 of the CAA is contingent on fulfilling the requirements in section 8 of the CAA.
R v Llewellyn [2022] EWCA Crim 154
Material non-compliance with section 8 of the CAA renders subsequent proceedings in the Crown Court invalid.
R v Llewellyn [2022] EWCA Crim 154
The two-month time limit for arraignment in section 8(1) of the CAA is mandatory.
This case
The Court of Appeal will only depart from its previous decisions in limited circumstances (conflict between decisions, incompatibility with Supreme Court decisions, per incuriam). In criminal cases, the approach is less rigid but still restrictive.
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718; R v Simpson [2003] EWCA Crim 1499
Outcomes
The appeal is allowed.
The Crown Court lacked jurisdiction to retry Layden due to the failure to arraign him within the two-month period stipulated in section 8 of the CAA. The Court found that this was a matter of jurisdictional bar, not merely procedural irregularity, and that they were bound to follow the precedent set in Llewellyn.
Layden's conviction for murder is quashed.
The conviction is deemed unsafe because the Crown Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the retrial due to non-compliance with section 8 of the CAA.