Andrew Malkinson: Police and prosecutors had important DNA proof in 2007 – report
P
olice and prosecutors reportedly knew in 2007 that one other man’s DNA was on the garments of the lady Andrew Malkinson was wrongly imprisoned for raping, but he stayed behind bars for 13 extra years.
Mr Malkinson, who spent 17 years in jail for a rape he didn’t commit, had his conviction quashed final month after DNA linking one other man to the crime was produced.
Case recordsdata obtained by the 57-year-old as he battled to be freed present that officers and prosecutors knew forensic testing in 2007 had recognized a searchable male DNA profile on the rape sufferer’s vest prime that didn’t match his personal, The Guardian reported.
They opted to take no additional motion and there’s no file that they advised the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the physique accountable for investigating attainable miscarriages of justice, in response to the report.
If the CCRC had investigated correctly, it could have spared me years in jail for against the law I didn’t commit
The CPS mentioned Mr Malkinson’s legal professionals had been advised of the brand new DNA proof.
The CCRC refused to order additional forensic testing or refer the case for enchantment in 2012 and the case recordsdata reportedly recommend it was nervous about prices.
Malkinson was wrongly discovered responsible of raping a lady in Greater Manchester in 2003 and the subsequent 12 months was jailed for all times with a minimal time period of seven years, however he served an additional 10 as a result of he maintained his innocence.
Notes of a gathering between the Forensic Science Service, the CPS and Greater Manchester Police (GMP) in December 2009 suggests the CPS understood the attainable significance of the 2007 DNA discover, in response to the report.
CPS steerage states it “must write to the CCRC at the earliest opportunity about any case in which there is doubt about the safety of the conviction”.
An inside log of Mr Malkinson’s first software to the CCRC in 2009 – in a bid to enchantment towards his conviction – reportedly reveals CCRC highlighted the price of additional testing and mentioned it could be unlikely to result in his conviction being quashed.
Mr Malkinson’s solicitor Emily Bolton, director of the Appeal charity, mentioned: “The documents are a shocking chronicle of how Andy was utterly failed by the body which should have put an end to his wrongful conviction nightmare, but instead acted as a barrier to justice.
“An overhaul of the CCRC is needed to prevent it failing other innocent prisoners.”
James Burley, investigator at Appeal, mentioned: “These records prove that the CCRC’s handling of Andy’s case was deeply flawed and a complete mess.
“By not bothering to obtain the police files, the CCRC failed to uncover evidence which could have got Andy’s name cleared a decade earlier.”
He added: “The CCRC’s internal comments show that in deciding not to commission any DNA testing, cost was at the forefront of their considerations. That decision may have saved the CCRC some money, but it came at a brutal cost for both Andy and the victim.
“The CCRC has been giving the false impression that a DNA breakthrough could not have been achieved by them sooner.
“These records show that is nonsense, and I don’t think they would have commissioned any DNA enquiries on this case at all if APPEAL hadn’t obtained new DNA testing results ourselves first.”
Mr Malkinson mentioned: “If the CCRC had investigated properly, it would have spared me years in prison for a crime I did not commit.
“I feel an apology is the least I am owed, but it seems like the very body set up to address the system’s fallibility is labouring under the delusion that it is itself infallible. How many more people has it failed?”
CCRC, GMP and the CPS have been approached for remark by the PA news company.
A CPS spokesperson advised The Guardian: “It is clear Mr Malkinson was wrongly convicted of this crime and we share the deep regret that this happened.
“Evidence of a new DNA profile found on the victim’s clothing in 2007 was not ignored. It was disclosed to the defence team representing Mr Malkinson for their consideration.
“In addition, searches of the DNA databases were conducted to identify any other possible suspects. At that time there were no matches and therefore no further investigation could be carried out.”
The CCRC advised the newspaper: “As we have said before, it is plainly wrong that a man spent 17 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.”