Man who served for a rape he insists he did not commit is cleared

Andrew Malkinson CLEARED after serving 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit after new DNA analysis cast doubt on his conviction

• Andrew Malkinson was found guilty of a 2003 attack in Greater Manchester
• He maintained he was innocent and today had his conviction quashed in court

A man who served 17 years behind bars for a rape he did not commit has been cleared by the Court of Appeal.

Andrew Malkinson, 57, was found guilty of the 2003 attack on a woman in Greater Manchester and the following year was jailed for life with a minimum term of seven years but remained in prison for a further 10 because he maintained he was innocent.

But his appeal against his conviction, which centres around new DNA evidence that recently emerged pointing to another potential suspect, was today successful.

He said outside court today: ‘I came to the police station in 2003. I told the officers I was innocent – they didn’t believe me.

‘I can to the crown court in Manchester in 2004. I told the jury I was innocent – they didn’t believe me.

‘I came to this appeal court in 2006 and told them I was innocent – they didn’t believe me.

‘I applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is supposed to investigate miscarriages of justice and told them I was innocent.

Andrew Malkinson arrives at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, ahead of his hearing at the Court of Appeal earlier today

Andrew Malkinson, 57, (pictured) was found guilty of the 2003 attack on a woman in Greater Manchester and the following year was jailed for life with a minimum term of seven years but remained in prison for a further 10 because he maintained he was innocent 

‘They didn’t investigate and they didn’t believe me. Not once, but twice.

‘Today we told this court I was innocent and finally they listened, but I have been innocent all along for each of those 20 years that came before today. Nothing that any police officer, court or commission said about me since 2003 changed that reality.

‘You are here to gather news, that declaration from the bench behind me is not news to me. When a jury finds you guilty when you are innocent, reality does not change.

Previously Mr Malkinson had said it had been 20 years since he was arrested and hoped the court reached ‘the right decision and quashes the conviction’, adding that it has ‘taken a huge toll on his life’.

Asked what it would mean to clear his name, he said: ‘It is the single most important thing in my life, since the day I was convicted.

Mr Malkinson outside the Royal Courts of Justice, London, on May 3, 2023. He had his conviction for rape referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) over new DNA evidence

‘I come from a strong, honourable family. My father and grandfather were military men and they fought with distinction.

‘I am proud to be a Malkinson and they have tarnished our name. I could never do what they accused me of, never.

‘I want the court to find I am innocent, if they don’t I will keep on fighting.’

The case was referred to the court in January by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, after new DNA evidence was discovered.

He previously applied for his case to be reviewed by the CCRC twice, but was turned down, eventually being released from prison in December 2020.

After his release, advancements in scientific techniques allowed his legal team, supported by legal charity Appeal, to provide new DNA analysis that cast doubt on his conviction to the CCRC.

The body then commissioned its own testing that found that DNA from the victim’s clothing matched another man on the national police database.

Greater Manchester Police confirmed in January that a man had been arrested and released under investigation in light of the new information, but no decision has yet been made as to whether he will be charged.

Previously Edward Henry KC, for Mr Malkinson, told the court the CCRC was aware since 2009 that there was ‘crime specific’ DNA which was not a match for either Mr Malkinson or the victim.

However, he said at that time the CCRC ‘did not consider it tipped the balance towards a referral’ to the Court of Appeal.

Mr Malkinson said it has been 20 years since he was arrested and it has ‘taken a huge toll on his life’

However, in October last year, the sample was found to be a partial match for another man, who the court ordered can only be identified as ‘Mr B’, and forensic investigations are ongoing, with a final report due later this month.

Mr Henry said that ‘to this day’ no DNA evidence to link Mr Malkinson to the crime has ever been deduced.

The prosecution case against him at his trial was based solely on identification evidence.

Source: Read Full Article