You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Alan Bates rejects second offer of compensation following Post Office Horizon scandal
Andy Malkinson: DNA evidence identified three years after rape conviction
A man who served 17 years in prison has had his rape conviction overturned after fresh DNA evidence emerged linking another suspect to the crime.
Andrew Malkinson was jailed for life with a minimum term of seven years after he was found guilty of the 2003 attack on a woman in Greater Manchester but stayed in jail for another decade because he maintained his innocence.
No DNA evidence linked him to the crime, with the prosecution case based solely on contested eyewitness identification.
His case was referred to the Court of Appeal in January by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), on the basis of new DNA evidence that identified another suspect, who has since been arrested.
Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) did not contest the appeal and the 57-year-old's conviction has been quashed by three senior judges.
His lawyers told the Court of Appeal that his case could have "wider implications" for the criminal justice system.
Mr Malkinson, who was released from prison in December 2020 has previously called for the police to be held accountable.
'I continue to suffer each day'
"I've suffered incalculably for the last 20 years as a result of my wrongful conviction, and I continue to suffer each day," he said.
"I have always known I am innocent."
Along with the DNA evidence, his lawyers earlier told the court photographs of the victim's hands, which were not disclosed at the trial, corroborated her evidence that she scratched her attacker and broke a nail.
They also said there was evidence one of the key witnesses was a "long term user of heroin" - which again was not known by Mr Malkinson or his legal team at the time.
Mr Malkinson previously applied twice for his case to be reviewed by the CCRC, which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, but was turned down.
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 which found that DNA from the victim's clothing matched another man on the national police database.
GMP confirmed in January a man had been arrested and released under investigation in light of the new information. No decision has been made as to whether he will be charged.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/andrew-malkinson-rape-conviction-man-084100187.html
A man who served 17 years in prison has had his rape conviction overturned after fresh DNA evidence emerged linking another suspect to the crime.
Andrew Malkinson was jailed for life with a minimum term of seven years after he was found guilty of the 2003 attack on a woman in Greater Manchester but stayed in jail for another decade because he maintained his innocence.
No DNA evidence linked him to the crime, with the prosecution case based solely on contested eyewitness identification.
His case was referred to the Court of Appeal in January by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), on the basis of new DNA evidence that identified another suspect, who has since been arrested.
Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) did not contest the appeal and the 57-year-old's conviction has been quashed by three senior judges.
His lawyers told the Court of Appeal that his case could have "wider implications" for the criminal justice system.
Mr Malkinson, who was released from prison in December 2020 has previously called for the police to be held accountable.
'I continue to suffer each day'
"I've suffered incalculably for the last 20 years as a result of my wrongful conviction, and I continue to suffer each day," he said.
"I have always known I am innocent."
Along with the DNA evidence, his lawyers earlier told the court photographs of the victim's hands, which were not disclosed at the trial, corroborated her evidence that she scratched her attacker and broke a nail.
They also said there was evidence one of the key witnesses was a "long term user of heroin" - which again was not known by Mr Malkinson or his legal team at the time.
Mr Malkinson previously applied twice for his case to be reviewed by the CCRC, which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, but was turned down.
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 which found that DNA from the victim's clothing matched another man on the national police database.
GMP confirmed in January a man had been arrested and released under investigation in light of the new information. No decision has been made as to whether he will be charged.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/andrew-malkinson-rape-conviction-man-084100187.html
Comments
Will this poor chap get compensated?
He could have been released from prison in 2010. They offered him a "rehab course" but to qualify, he had to admit guilt for the crimes he was convicted of. He refused.
I've seen it with my own eyes when following Stoke in Manchester
A man who spent 17 years in jail after being wrongfully convicted of attempted rape has been denied compensation.
Victor Nealon was living in Redditch, Worcestershire, when he was found guilty of attacking a woman and jailed for life.
In December, his conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal after fresh DNA evidence came to light.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has turned down a claim and said there was no automatic right to compensation.
A spokesperson for the MoJ said claims were dealt with on a case-by-case basis and that it would not comment on individual claims.
Mark Newby, Mr Nealon's solicitor, said his client was "very angry" about the decision and planned to challenge it.
Maintained innocence
Mr Nealon was arrested after a woman was sexually assaulted on her way home from a nightclub in Redditch in 1996.
Despite being jailed for life in January 1997, Mr Nealon always maintained his innocence.
Last month, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) ,a body set up to investigate claims of miscarriages of justice, apologised after two previous appeals to have the case reviewed were turned down.
On the third attempt, the CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal.
Last year, three judges heard DNA material found on the the 22-year-old victim's blouse belonged to an "unknown male" and called into doubt the jury's original guilty verdict.
However, in turning down Mr Nealon's claim for compensation, the MoJ said the owner of the DNA could not be identified, and added it could not be established that it "undoubtedly belonged to the attacker".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-27904598
Although no decision on charging him has been made.
Where is @Essexphil when you need him?
@HAYSIE @Essexphil
I gather he's busy, in a meeting, dealing with some pressing matters for a Mr Lewis.
"Free advice Phil" at your service
Victor Nealon. That matter is still before the Courts. Rather bizarrely, for Compensation to be awarded by the MoJ, it was at that time necessary to show not only that the conviction was unsafe, but that the evidence "prove" that the Claimant was "innocent" .
So we have the odd rule that the accused has to prove their innocence. Which is usually an impossible task. To give the DNA example, it proves a different person was involved-but does not prove the original suspect was not.
This whole area is fraught with difficulty. Let me give 1 example to show what I mean. Suppose a man was convicted of raping someone in Leeds. And the "new DNA evidence" proving he was innocent of that Crime is he can now be shown to be raping a different person in Brighton at that time. Who wants him to receive £millions of taxpayers money for wrongful imprisonment?
Nealon is before the Grand Chamber of the ECHR. And, while nothing is certain, I know which side I would rather be on.
Will they treat Malkinson in the same way? Very much doubt it.
At the time of Mr Malkinson’s trial, there was no DNA evidence linking him to the crime and the prosecution case against him was based only on identification evidence.
But a DNA sample, held by the forensic archive, was tested and found last October to link to another man, who has since been arrested.
A decision on whether he will be charged is awaited.
The court will decide later whether Mr Malkinson’s convictions were also unsafe because of what his lawyer Edward Henry KC called “deplorable disclosure failures, which mostly lay at the door of the Greater Manchester Police”.
They include police photographs of the victim’s left hand, which supported her evidence that she broke a nail scratching the face of her attacker, and the fact the two witnesses who identified Mr Malkinson had convictions for dishonesty offences and one was a heroin addict.
None of this was available to Mr Malkinson’s defence team at his trial and Mr Henry said the failure to disclose the photographs “deprived” Mr Malkinson of his “strongest defence point – his lack of any facial injury”.
Emily Bolton, director of the legal charity Appeal, said outside court: “We of course welcome today’s ruling overturning Andy’s wrongful conviction but the question which should trouble everyone is why it took nearly 20 years to get here.
“The truth is this case is an indictment of both the Court of Appeal and the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
“These so-called ‘safety nets’ in our justice system missed three earlier opportunities to put this obvious miscarriage of justice right.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/andrew-malkinson-greater-manchester-police-apology-wrongful-rape-conviction-b1097031.html
Andy Malkinson's custody picture two weeks after the rape - and the e-fit of the suspect
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-66310919
If so why didn't the defence lawyer ask at the trial ask GMP if they had DNA evidence and why not bring it up at trial
I don't know how this works tbh but to me it seems a simple question
"Even after this judgment today, I predict we will see them denying responsibility for what happened. We will see them stretching credulity with their excuse-making.
"Greater Manchester Police have been scrambling to cover up how they wrongfully convicted me for 20 years.
"Rather than investigate the multiple leads they were given by the public, they made a horribly traumatised woman look at a line with me in it even though I didn't match the description she had given of her attacker.
"They exploited a hopeless heroin addict and his girlfriend, both with dishonesty convictions, having them tell the jury they identified me.
"They unlawfully withheld crucial evidence which would have helped my defence.
"Once I began appealing, the police unlawfully destroyed the victim's clothing that I was demanding be retested along with other evidence, not just once but three times.
"And all this time, the person who really did this horrific crime has been at large - and this means it is not just me who has been denied justice, it is the victim.
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-07-26/denied-justice-andrew-malkinson-speaks-after-17-years-wrongly-jailed
Really, really complex answer.
A lot of it relates to what duties are owed by the Prosecution to the Defence.
There is no easy answer to that question. Important to remember there is no duty whatsoever on the Defence to assist the Prosecution.
It would be true to say the duties on the Prosecution are higher than they were 20 years ago. But important to remember the police did not adduce any DNA evidence at the time, and the relevance of DNA evidence was a lot less then, due to the Science of DNA testing still being in its infancy. It looks more like the Police deemed the DNA sample to be insufficient at the time, and believed it to be irrelevant.
Does beg the question as to why the subsequent Reviews failed to take into account advances in Science.
Edit: This could be made up shite , it'll be interesting to see what the enquiry finds
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66513959
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/andrew-malkinson-innocent-man-spent-110823224.html