Andrew Malkinson's bid to clear name over rape conviction to be heard by
court of appeal

GRANADA
GREATER MANCHESTER

Wednesday 26 July 2023 at 7:39am

Malkinson's case is due to be heard by Lord Justice Holroyde and two other
judges.
Credit: PA Images

A man who spent almost two decades in prison for a rape he says he did not
commit will have his case heard by the Court of Appeal today.

In 2003, Andrew Malkinson was found guilty of attacking a woman in Greater
Manchester.

A year later, the 57-year-old was jailed for life with a minimum term of
seven years, but remained in prison for a further 10 because he said he was
innocent.

On Wednesday 26 July at 10.30am, three of the most senior judges in England
must rule whether to throw out Mr Malkinson's conviction for rape.

It comes after new DNA evidence emerged pointing to another potential
suspect.

At the time of the trial, there was no DNA evidence linking Mr Malkinson to
the crime and the prosecution case against him was based solely on
identification evidence.

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

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
confirmed in May that they will not contest Mr Malkinson's appeal, and the
court may quash his conviction at today's hearing if it decides it is
unsafe.

The court still has to determine the outcome and scope of the appeal,
despite the lack of resistance.
In a statement after the CPS and GMP announced their decision, Mr Malkinson
said: "I've suffered incalculably for the last 20 years as a result of my
wrongful conviction, and I continue to suffer each day.

"I have always known I am innocent. Finally, the prosecution has
acknowledged my conviction should not stand.

"Of course, it is still the Court of Appeal's decision to grant me justice.
I sincerely hope they will give serious consideration to the disclosure
failures which denied me a fair trial.

"The police must be made accountable - no one should have to suffer what
I've been through."

While his main ground of appeal is new DNA evidence, his lawyers told the
court at a preliminary hearing in May that there were photographs of the
victim's hands, confirming her evidence that she scratched her attacker and
broke a nail, which was not revealed during Mr Malkinson's trial.

They also said there is evidence that one of the key identification
witnesses was a "long-term user of heroin", which may have affected his
memory, but that was not known by Mr Malkinson or his legal team at trial.

At the preliminary hearing in May, Edward Henry KC, for Mr Malkinson, told
the court the CCRC had been aware since 2009 that there was "crime
specific" DNA which was not a match for either Mr Malkinson or the victim.

But he said at that time the CCRC "did not consider it tipped the balance
towards a referral" to the Court of Appeal.

Yet in October 2022, the sample was found to be a partial match for another
man, who the court ordered can only be identified as Mr B.

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

Following his release, scientific advancements allowed his legal team 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.

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

<https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-07-26/mans-20-year-journey-to-seek-justice-over-rape-conviction>

--
Spike

On 26/07/2023 09:14 am, Spike wrote:
> Andrew Malkinson's bid to clear name over rape conviction to be heard by
> court of appeal
>
> GRANADA
> GREATER MANCHESTER
>
> Wednesday 26 July 2023 at 7:39am
>
> Malkinson's case is due to be heard by Lord Justice Holroyde and two other
> judges.
> Credit: PA Images
>
> A man who spent almost two decades in prison for a rape he says he did not
> commit will have his case heard by the Court of Appeal today.
>
> In 2003, Andrew Malkinson was found guilty of attacking a woman in Greater
> Manchester.
>
> A year later, the 57-year-old was jailed for life with a minimum term of
> seven years, but remained in prison for a further 10 because he said he was
> innocent.
>
> On Wednesday 26 July at 10.30am, three of the most senior judges in England
> must rule whether to throw out Mr Malkinson's conviction for rape.
>
> It comes after new DNA evidence emerged pointing to another potential
> suspect.
>
> At the time of the trial, there was no DNA evidence linking Mr Malkinson to
> the crime and the prosecution case against him was based solely on
> identification evidence.
>
> His case was referred to the Court of Appeal in January by the Criminal
> Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages
> of justice, after the new evidence was discovered.
>
> Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
> confirmed in May that they will not contest Mr Malkinson's appeal, and the
> court may quash his conviction at today's hearing if it decides it is
> unsafe.
>
> The court still has to determine the outcome and scope of the appeal,
> despite the lack of resistance.
> In a statement after the CPS and GMP announced their decision, Mr Malkinson
> said: "I've suffered incalculably for the last 20 years as a result of my
> wrongful conviction, and I continue to suffer each day.
>
> "I have always known I am innocent. Finally, the prosecution has
> acknowledged my conviction should not stand.
>
> "Of course, it is still the Court of Appeal's decision to grant me justice.
> I sincerely hope they will give serious consideration to the disclosure
> failures which denied me a fair trial.
>
> "The police must be made accountable - no one should have to suffer what
> I've been through."
>
> While his main ground of appeal is new DNA evidence, his lawyers told the
> court at a preliminary hearing in May that there were photographs of the
> victim's hands, confirming her evidence that she scratched her attacker and
> broke a nail, which was not revealed during Mr Malkinson's trial.
>
> They also said there is evidence that one of the key identification
> witnesses was a "long-term user of heroin", which may have affected his
> memory, but that was not known by Mr Malkinson or his legal team at trial.
>
> At the preliminary hearing in May, Edward Henry KC, for Mr Malkinson, told
> the court the CCRC had been aware since 2009 that there was "crime
> specific" DNA which was not a match for either Mr Malkinson or the victim.
>
> But he said at that time the CCRC "did not consider it tipped the balance
> towards a referral" to the Court of Appeal.
>
> Yet in October 2022, the sample was found to be a partial match for another
> man, who the court ordered can only be identified as Mr B.
>
> Mr Malkinson previously applied twice for his case to be reviewed by the
> CCRC, but was turned down, eventually being released from prison in
> December 2020.
>
> Following his release, scientific advancements allowed his legal team 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.
>
> In January Greater Manchester Police confirmed that a man had been arrested
> and released under investigation in light of the new information, but no
> decision has been made as to whether he will be charged.
>
> <https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-07-26/mans-20-year-journey-to-seek-justice-over-rape-conviction>

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

On the basis that a conviction is only sound if it is beyond *any*
reasonable doubt, that fact alone must lead to a successful appeal.

>
>

On 26/07/2023 03:17 pm, JNugent wrote:
> On 26/07/2023 09:14 am, Spike wrote:
>> Andrew Malkinson's bid to clear name over rape conviction to be heard by
>> court of appeal
>>
>> GRANADA
>> GREATER MANCHESTER
>>
>> Wednesday 26 July 2023 at 7:39am
>>
>> Malkinson's case is due to be heard by Lord Justice Holroyde and two
>> other
>> judges.
>> Credit: PA Images
>>
>> A man who spent almost two decades in prison for a rape he says he did
>> not
>> commit will have his case heard by the Court of Appeal today.
>>
>> In 2003, Andrew Malkinson was found guilty of attacking a woman in
>> Greater
>> Manchester.
>>
>> A year later, the 57-year-old was jailed for life with a minimum term of
>> seven years, but remained in prison for a further 10 because he said
>> he was
>> innocent.
>>
>> On Wednesday 26 July at 10.30am, three of the most senior judges in
>> England
>> must rule whether to throw out Mr Malkinson's conviction for rape.
>>
>> It comes after new DNA evidence emerged pointing to another potential
>> suspect.
>>
>> At the time of the trial, there was no DNA evidence linking Mr
>> Malkinson to
>> the crime and the prosecution case against him was based solely on
>> identification evidence.
>>
>> His case was referred to the Court of Appeal in January by the Criminal
>> Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages
>> of justice, after the new evidence was discovered.
>>
>> Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
>> confirmed in May that they will not contest Mr Malkinson's appeal, and
>> the
>> court may quash his conviction at today's hearing if it decides it is
>> unsafe.
>>
>> The court still has to determine the outcome and scope of the appeal,
>> despite the lack of resistance.
>> In a statement after the CPS and GMP announced their decision, Mr
>> Malkinson
>> said: "I've suffered incalculably for the last 20 years as a result of my
>> wrongful conviction, and I continue to suffer each day.
>>
>> "I have always known I am innocent. Finally, the prosecution has
>> acknowledged my conviction should not stand.
>>
>> "Of course, it is still the Court of Appeal's decision to grant me
>> justice.
>> I sincerely hope they will give serious consideration to the disclosure
>> failures which denied me a fair trial.
>>
>> "The police must be made accountable - no one should have to suffer what
>> I've been through."
>>
>> While his main ground of appeal is new DNA evidence, his lawyers told the
>> court at a preliminary hearing in May that there were photographs of the
>> victim's hands, confirming her evidence that she scratched her
>> attacker and
>> broke a nail, which was not revealed during Mr Malkinson's trial.
>>
>> They also said there is evidence that one of the key identification
>> witnesses was a "long-term user of heroin", which may have affected his
>> memory, but that was not known by Mr Malkinson or his legal team at
>> trial.
>>
>> At the preliminary hearing in May, Edward Henry KC, for Mr Malkinson,
>> told
>> the court the CCRC had been aware since 2009 that there was "crime
>> specific" DNA which was not a match for either Mr Malkinson or the
>> victim.
>>
>> But he said at that time the CCRC "did not consider it tipped the balance
>> towards a referral" to the Court of Appeal.
>>
>> Yet in October 2022, the sample was found to be a partial match for
>> another
>> man, who the court ordered can only be identified as Mr B.
>>
>> Mr Malkinson previously applied twice for his case to be reviewed by the
>> CCRC, but was turned down, eventually being released from prison in
>> December 2020.
>>
>> Following his release, scientific advancements allowed his legal team 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.
>>
>> In January Greater Manchester Police confirmed that a man had been
>> arrested
>> and released under investigation in light of the new information, but no
>> decision has been made as to whether he will be charged.
>>
>> <https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-07-26/mans-20-year-journey-to-seek-justice-over-rape-conviction>
>>
>
> "In January Greater Manchester Police confirmed that a man had been
> arrested and released under investigation in light of the new
> information, but no decision has been made as to whether he will be
> charged."
>
> On the basis that a conviction is only sound if it is beyond *any*
> reasonable doubt, that fact alone must lead to a successful appeal.

And as forecast, he's OUT!

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-66310919>

Let's all hope that for twenty stolen years, he has a nice big compo pot
to look forward to, soonest.

I wonder who'll be the defendant(s)?

The person who swore in court that it was him, or Greater Manchester Police?

Could be both.

On 26/07/2023 05:11 pm, JNugent wrote:

Just an addition:

> On 26/07/2023 03:17 pm, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/07/2023 09:14 am, Spike wrote:

>>> Andrew Malkinson's bid to clear name over rape conviction to be heard by
>>> court of appeal
[ ... ]
>>> Wednesday 26 July 2023 at 7:39am
>
>>> Malkinson's case is due to be heard by Lord Justice Holroyde and two
>>> other judges.

>>> A man who spent almost two decades in prison for a rape he says he
>>> did not commit will have his case heard by the Court of Appeal today.

>>> In 2003, Andrew Malkinson was found guilty of attacking a woman in
>>> Greater Manchester.

[ ... ]

>>> In January Greater Manchester Police confirmed that a man had been
>>> arrested and released under investigation in light of the new
>>> information, but no decision has been made as to whether he will be
>>> charged.
>
>>> <https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-07-26/mans-20-year-journey-to-seek-justice-over-rape-conviction>
>
QUOTE:
>> "In January Greater Manchester Police confirmed that a man had been
>> arrested and released under investigation in light of the new
>> information, but no decision has been made as to whether he will be
>> charged."
>
>> On the basis that a conviction is only sound if it is beyond *any*
>> reasonable doubt, that fact alone must lead to a successful appeal.
>
> And as forecast, he's OUT!
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-66310919>
> Let's all hope that for twenty stolen years, he has a nice big compo pot
> to look forward to, soonest.
> I wonder who'll be the defendant(s)?
> The person who swore in court that it was him, or Greater Manchester
> Police?
> Could be both.

QUOTE:

GMP's Assistant Chief Constable Sarah Jackson said the force was "truly
sorry" to Mr Malkinson over the "grave miscarriage of justice".
ENDQUOTE

How "sorry"?

QUOTE:
She said the force was "also profoundly sorry to the victim of this
crime, who not only suffered an horrific trauma 20 years ago, but also
relived the experience during a criminal trial, and now may endure
additional harm caused by learning that the true offender has not yet
been brought to justice".

Cases like Mr Malkinson's were "thankfully very rare", she said, but
added that the force had and would continue to "fully co-operate with
any further reviews and action will be taken if it is found that
anything could have been done differently".
She said she had offered to meet Mr Malkinson "to personally deliver
this apology".
ENDQUOTE

Take your official cheque-book to the meeting, Sarah. That'll be a start.

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
> On 26/07/2023 03:17 pm, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/07/2023 09:14 am, Spike wrote:
>>> Andrew Malkinson's bid to clear name over rape conviction to be heard by
>>> court of appeal
>>>
>>> GRANADA
>>> GREATER MANCHESTER
>>>
>>> Wednesday 26 July 2023 at 7:39am
>>>
>>> Malkinson's case is due to be heard by Lord Justice Holroyde and two
>>> other
>>> judges.
>>> Credit: PA Images
>>>
>>> A man who spent almost two decades in prison for a rape he says he did
>>> not
>>> commit will have his case heard by the Court of Appeal today.
>>>
>>> In 2003, Andrew Malkinson was found guilty of attacking a woman in
>>> Greater
>>> Manchester.
>>>
>>> A year later, the 57-year-old was jailed for life with a minimum term of
>>> seven years, but remained in prison for a further 10 because he said
>>> he was
>>> innocent.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 26 July at 10.30am, three of the most senior judges in
>>> England
>>> must rule whether to throw out Mr Malkinson's conviction for rape.
>>>
>>> It comes after new DNA evidence emerged pointing to another potential
>>> suspect.
>>>
>>> At the time of the trial, there was no DNA evidence linking Mr
>>> Malkinson to
>>> the crime and the prosecution case against him was based solely on
>>> identification evidence.
>>>
>>> His case was referred to the Court of Appeal in January by the Criminal
>>> Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages
>>> of justice, after the new evidence was discovered.
>>>
>>> Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
>>> confirmed in May that they will not contest Mr Malkinson's appeal, and
>>> the
>>> court may quash his conviction at today's hearing if it decides it is
>>> unsafe.
>>>
>>> The court still has to determine the outcome and scope of the appeal,
>>> despite the lack of resistance.
>>> In a statement after the CPS and GMP announced their decision, Mr
>>> Malkinson
>>> said: "I've suffered incalculably for the last 20 years as a result of my
>>> wrongful conviction, and I continue to suffer each day.
>>>
>>> "I have always known I am innocent. Finally, the prosecution has
>>> acknowledged my conviction should not stand.
>>>
>>> "Of course, it is still the Court of Appeal's decision to grant me
>>> justice.
>>> I sincerely hope they will give serious consideration to the disclosure
>>> failures which denied me a fair trial.
>>>
>>> "The police must be made accountable - no one should have to suffer what
>>> I've been through."
>>>
>>> While his main ground of appeal is new DNA evidence, his lawyers told the
>>> court at a preliminary hearing in May that there were photographs of the
>>> victim's hands, confirming her evidence that she scratched her
>>> attacker and
>>> broke a nail, which was not revealed during Mr Malkinson's trial.
>>>
>>> They also said there is evidence that one of the key identification
>>> witnesses was a "long-term user of heroin", which may have affected his
>>> memory, but that was not known by Mr Malkinson or his legal team at
>>> trial.
>>>
>>> At the preliminary hearing in May, Edward Henry KC, for Mr Malkinson,
>>> told
>>> the court the CCRC had been aware since 2009 that there was "crime
>>> specific" DNA which was not a match for either Mr Malkinson or the
>>> victim.
>>>
>>> But he said at that time the CCRC "did not consider it tipped the balance
>>> towards a referral" to the Court of Appeal.
>>>
>>> Yet in October 2022, the sample was found to be a partial match for
>>> another
>>> man, who the court ordered can only be identified as Mr B.
>>>
>>> Mr Malkinson previously applied twice for his case to be reviewed by the
>>> CCRC, but was turned down, eventually being released from prison in
>>> December 2020.
>>>
>>> Following his release, scientific advancements allowed his legal team 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.
>>>
>>> In January Greater Manchester Police confirmed that a man had been
>>> arrested
>>> and released under investigation in light of the new information, but no
>>> decision has been made as to whether he will be charged.
>>>
>>> <https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-07-26/mans-20-year-journey-to-seek-justice-over-rape-conviction>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "In January Greater Manchester Police confirmed that a man had been
>> arrested and released under investigation in light of the new
>> information, but no decision has been made as to whether he will be
>> charged."
>>
>> On the basis that a conviction is only sound if it is beyond *any*
>> reasonable doubt, that fact alone must lead to a successful appeal.
>
> And as forecast, he's OUT!
>
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-66310919>
>
> Let's all hope that for twenty stolen years, he has a nice big compo pot
> to look forward to, soonest.
>
> I wonder who'll be the defendant(s)?
>
> The person who swore in court that it was him, or Greater Manchester Police?
>
> Could be both.

Just think, he could have fessed up early doors, got out in seven years, be
branded as a criminal for the rest of his life, and got no compo.

--
Spike