Imagine the horror of spending 17 years in prison for rape when you know you are innocent, i know lie detector evidence is not admissible but why not why cant lie detectors be used at the guilty persons request to show they are not lying?
The Appeal Court has quashed the rape conviction of a man who spent 17 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.
Andrew Malkinson was previously found guilty of attacking a woman in Salford in 2003, even though - three appeal judges were told - there was "no forensic matter" linking him to the crime.
Judges ruled that verdict was unsafe after hearing new DNA evidence, taken from the victim's fingernails, skin and clothing, did not match Mr Malkinson.
Lord Justice Holroyde, delivering the ruling, said: "We have no doubt that the new evidence shows these convictions to be unsafe.
"We quash... and Mr Malkinson you leave this court a free man."
Mr Malkinson's lawyer, Edward Henry KC, had told the hearing: "This is an historic case but also an historic injustice.
"DNA testing, which Mr Malkinson had called for since his arrest, now supports his long standing protestations of innocence.
"It was not, and could not have been, [him.]"
The judges reserved a ruling on further grounds for appeal raised by Mr Malkinson's legal team.
The prosecution at the time, they said, was based on identification evidence which Mr Henry described as having "deplorable disclosure failures which mostly lay at the door of the Greater Manchester Police."
Mr Henry raised the issue of a photo showing the victim with a broken fingernail, after she scratched her attacker deeply on the cheek. He told the court it was not disclosed during the trial.
Mr Malkinson had no cheek injury, the lawyer said, when he was arrested the day after the woman had been assaulted.
Judges also heard that a key witness was "actively abusing drugs" and picked out Mr Malkinson from an electronic ID parade while the witness was being investigated for unrelated offences.
The defence in the trial, Mr Henry said, were unaware of that. He added that the previous convictions of two witnesses were also not disclosed, meaning the jury could not question whether they were "honest."
"There was," he told judges, "ample material the defence could have used to undermine [their] credibility and reliability."
The now 57-year-old served 10 extra years, beyond his original minimum term of seven years, because he would not admit to the crime while in prison.
After his eventual release, Mr Malkinson told ITV News that his time behind bars was "torture."
"It felt great to be out of the confines, not to be physically held, because I longed to be free for so long.
"I’ve got a black hole - just behind me - filled with nothing, joylessness, misery, horror, pain, psychological torture."
He later added in a statement: "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. The police must be made accountable - no one should have to suffer what I've been through."
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...e-after-two-decade-journey-to-prove-innocence
The Appeal Court has quashed the rape conviction of a man who spent 17 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.
Andrew Malkinson was previously found guilty of attacking a woman in Salford in 2003, even though - three appeal judges were told - there was "no forensic matter" linking him to the crime.
Judges ruled that verdict was unsafe after hearing new DNA evidence, taken from the victim's fingernails, skin and clothing, did not match Mr Malkinson.
Lord Justice Holroyde, delivering the ruling, said: "We have no doubt that the new evidence shows these convictions to be unsafe.
"We quash... and Mr Malkinson you leave this court a free man."
Mr Malkinson's lawyer, Edward Henry KC, had told the hearing: "This is an historic case but also an historic injustice.
"DNA testing, which Mr Malkinson had called for since his arrest, now supports his long standing protestations of innocence.
"It was not, and could not have been, [him.]"
The judges reserved a ruling on further grounds for appeal raised by Mr Malkinson's legal team.
The prosecution at the time, they said, was based on identification evidence which Mr Henry described as having "deplorable disclosure failures which mostly lay at the door of the Greater Manchester Police."
Mr Henry raised the issue of a photo showing the victim with a broken fingernail, after she scratched her attacker deeply on the cheek. He told the court it was not disclosed during the trial.
Mr Malkinson had no cheek injury, the lawyer said, when he was arrested the day after the woman had been assaulted.
Judges also heard that a key witness was "actively abusing drugs" and picked out Mr Malkinson from an electronic ID parade while the witness was being investigated for unrelated offences.
The defence in the trial, Mr Henry said, were unaware of that. He added that the previous convictions of two witnesses were also not disclosed, meaning the jury could not question whether they were "honest."
"There was," he told judges, "ample material the defence could have used to undermine [their] credibility and reliability."
The now 57-year-old served 10 extra years, beyond his original minimum term of seven years, because he would not admit to the crime while in prison.
After his eventual release, Mr Malkinson told ITV News that his time behind bars was "torture."
"It felt great to be out of the confines, not to be physically held, because I longed to be free for so long.
"I’ve got a black hole - just behind me - filled with nothing, joylessness, misery, horror, pain, psychological torture."
He later added in a statement: "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. The police must be made accountable - no one should have to suffer what I've been through."
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...e-after-two-decade-journey-to-prove-innocence
Last edited:
