In a shocking revelation, it has come to light the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) allegedly knew about the presence of another man’s DNA on the clothes of the woman Andrew Malkinson was wrongly imprisoned for raping back in 2007. Despite this information, Malkinson remained behind bars for another agonising 13 years, according to recently obtained case files.
The case took a dramatic turn when last month, DNA evidence linking another individual to the crime emerged, leading to Malkinson’s conviction being quashed. The 57-year-old had spent a total of 17 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.
Reports indicate that forensic testing conducted in 2007 identified a male DNA profile on the victim’s clothing that did not match Malkinson’s. Astonishingly, authorities decided not to pursue this lead and there is no record of them informing the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the body responsible for investigating potential miscarriages of justice.
The CPS, however, contends that Malkinson’s lawyers were informed of the new DNA evidence. The CCRC, on the other hand, allegedly declined to order further forensic testing or refer the case for appeal in 2012, with cost concerns purportedly being a factor in their decision-making.
Malkinson’s legal saga began in 2003 when he was found guilty of raping a woman in Greater Manchester. He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of seven years. However, he remained incarcerated for an additional 10 years for maintaining his innocence.
According to meeting notes from December 2009 involving the Forensic Science Service, the CPS, and Greater Manchester Police, the CPS acknowledged the potential significance of the 2007 DNA discovery.
The controversy deepened with revelations that CPS guidance requires the agency to promptly inform the CCRC when doubts about conviction safety arise. An internal log from Malkinson’s first application to the CCRC in 2009 reportedly revealed the Commission’s apprehension about the cost of additional testing, questioning its potential impact on quashing his conviction.
Malkinson expressed his frustration, stating, “If the CCRC had properly investigated, 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?”
A spokesperson for the CPS acknowledged the wrongful conviction, stating, “It is clear Mr. Malkinson was wrongly convicted of this crime, and we share the deep regret that this happened.”
