Before a man was cleared of rape, police and prosecutors “had DNA evidence for 16 years,” according to Andrew Malkinson.

Although Andrew Malkinson was wrongfully imprisoned for rape in 2007, police and prosecutors allegedly knew that another man’s DNA was on the garments of the victim. Despite this, he was kept in prison for an additional 13 years.

Following the discovery of DNA connecting another guy to the crime, Mr. Malkinson, who served 17 years in jail for a rape he did not commit, had his conviction overturned last month.

According to the files the 57-year-old got throughout his fight for freedom, officers and prosecutors were aware that forensic testing in 2007 had revealed a searchable male DNA profile on The top of the rape victim’s garment wasn’t identical to his own.

According to the study, they made the decision to take no further action, and there is no evidence that they informed the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the organization in charge of looking into potential injustices, of their decision.

The CPS claimed that the new DNA evidence was disclosed to Mr. Malkinson’s attorneys.

In 2012, the CCRC declined to order more forensic testing or refer the matter for appeal, apparently citing expense concerns in the case files.

After being wrongfully convicted of raping a lady in Greater Manchester in 2003, Mr. Malkinson was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum period of seven years the following year. However, he served an additional 10 years because he claimed that he was innocent.

According to the study, notes from a conference between the Forensic Science Service, the CPS, and Greater Manchester Police (GMP) in December 2009 indicate that the CPS was aware of the potential significance of the 2007 DNA discovery.

According to CPS guidance, it “must write to the CCRC regarding any instance in which there is concern about the security of the conviction at the earliest opportunity.”

According to reports, the CCRC noted the cost of additional testing and stated it would be unlikely to result in Mr. Malkinson’s conviction being overturned in an internal log of his initial application to the CCRC in 2009, which was made in an effort to appeal against his conviction.

The director of the Appeal charity, Emily Bolton, the attorney for Mr. Malkinson, stated that the records offer a horrific account of how Andy was completely let down by the organization that was supposed to put an end to his nightmare of a wrongfully convicted verdict but instead behaved as a roadblock to justice.

To avoid failing more innocent prisoners, the CCRC needs to be overhauled.

“These records prove that the CCRC’s handling of Andy’s case was seriously flawed and a complete mess,” said James Burley, an investigator at Appeal.

The CCRC lost the opportunity to discover information that would have cleared Andy’s record ten years earlier by opting not to request the police files.

“The CCRC’s internal comments show that cost was at the top of their considerations when they decided not to commission any DNA testing,” he continued. Although the choice may have saved the CCRC some money, it cost Andy and the victim dearly.

The false impression that they could not have achieved a breakthrough in DNA sooner has been provided by the CCRC.

These records demonstrate it to be nonsense, and if APPEAL hadn’t first acquired new DNA testing results, I doubt they would have ordered any DNA investigations into this case.

According to Mr. Malkinson, years in prison for a crime I didn’t commit would have been avoided if the CCRC had conducted a thorough investigation.

I believe I am entitled to at least an apology, but it appears that the body created to address the system’s fallibility is deluded into thinking it is imperturbable. How many more has it failed to convince?

The PA news agency has contacted the CCRC, GMP, and CPS for comments.

It is obvious that Mr. Malkinson was wrongfully convicted of this crime, and we share the tremendous remorse that this occurred, a CPS spokesperson told The Guardian.

The 2007 discovery of a brand-new DNA profile on the victim’s clothing was taken into consideration. The defense team defending Mr. Malkinson was informed of it for their consideration.

Additionally, to find any additional suspects, DNA database searches were done. There had been no matches at that time, so an additional inquiry was unable to be done.

As we have already stated, it is obviously incorrect that a guy served seventeen years in jail for a crime he did not commit, as the CCRC told the newspaper.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *