A HAMPSHIRE man who stabbed and clubbed a pensioner to death has failed to convince top judges he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Matthew Hamlen subjected Georgina Edmonds -  the widow of a former Basingstoke coffee merchant - to a brutal attack at her riverside cottage in Brambridge, near Eastleigh, Hampshire, in 2008.

The 37-year-old, of Cambourne Close, Bishopstoke, was originally cleared of killing the 77-year-old following a trial in 2012.

But, after new DNA evidence emerged, linking him to the scene of the crime, he was tried again.

His retrial came following the relaxation of the "double jeopardy" rule, which prevented someone being tried twice for the same crime.

He was found guilty of her murder at Winchester Crown Court in January and was jailed for life, with a minimum term of 30 years to serve.

Hamlen today challenged his conviction at the Court of Appeal, in London, with his lawyers arguing it was "unsafe".

They said jurors should not have been told about the first trial, or when it was, as these facts created "overwhelming prejudice" to his defence.

But his appeal bid was rejected by three of the country's most senior judges, who said the history of events was "relevant" to the jury's considerations and did not make his trial unfair.

Describing the case as "very tragic and unusual", Lord Justice Fulford told the court Mrs Edmonds was bludgeoned with a marble rolling pin and stabbed at her home, Figtree Cottage, in January 2008.

The pensioner was found lying face down in a pool of her own blood, with the broken rolling pin left near her body.

During the investigation into her murder, traces of Hamlen's DNA were found on the weapon.

Detectives also discovered his mobile phone, which was found on a towpath two weeks after her death, was in the same area as Mrs Edmonds' home around the time she was killed.

After he was acquitted, the blouse Mrs Edmonds was wearing when she was murdered was retested for DNA traces at a laboratory in Chorley in 2014, and a match was found to Hamlen.

The results showed the material found was 26 million times more likely to belong to him than to anyone else.

During the second trial, Mr Justice Spencer ruled that jurors should be told about the history of the case, as not telling them could lead to "speculation" as to the reason for the long delay in the blouse being tested.

William Mousley QC, for Hamlen, argued that telling the jury about this "irrelevant" matter was "grossly unfair" and made the conviction unsafe.

He said that letting the panel know there had been a previous trial, and the date of it, "shone a spotlight" on the new DNA evidence.

The barrister added: "It also raised the possibility of the jury considering that the applicant had 'got away with murder' at the previous trial and may have strengthened the resolve to convict."

But, dismissing his case, Lord Justice Fulford said both the fact this was a second trial and the date of the original trial were "relevant" and the judge was entitled to rule the jury should know.

Sitting with Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb and Judge Peter Collier QC, he added: "There was a substantial gap between the examination of the exhibit in 2010 and next in 2014.

"That gap was inexplicable and potentially highly confusing, absent an explanation of the first trial and when it occurred.

"In our view, a significant mystery would otherwise have been created that would undoubtedly need to be addressed.

"It was, therefore, relevant."

He concluded: "This was, in our view, arguably a strong case, certainly a case that properly went to the jury and, in the result, we do not consider that this application for leave to appeal is arguable."