- Innocent Man’s 17-Year Prison Sentence Overturned Due to Withheld Evidence
- Police Withheld Key Images in Trial, Leading to “Unsafe” Conviction
- Court of Appeal Highlights Evidence Withholding and Eyewitness Credibility in Overturning Conviction
A judge found that police hid facts from jurors, resulting in an innocent man serving 17 years for rape.
Andrew Malkinson was exonerated a month ago following the discovery of new DNA evidence linking another suspect to the crime.
The Court of Appeal found his conviction “unsafe” because Greater Manchester Police did not disclose photos during his trial.
Mr. Malkinson maintained his innocence at all times and was released in 2020.
He was imprisoned in 2004 for assaulting a Salford lady using merely identification proof.
Greater Manchester Police (GMP) expressed “sincere regret for this heinous miscarriage of justice.”
Mr. Malkinson stated, in response to the Court of Appeal’s decision, that he felt “vindicated by the court’s finding that [GMP] unlawfully withheld evidence” and “caused his wrongful conviction nightmare.”
In July, Lord Justice Holroyde overturned Mr. Malkinson’s convictions for two rapes and one choking or smothering.
Last month, the judge, sitting with Mr. Justice Goose and Sir Robin Spencer, stated that Mr. Malkinson’s legal team had “raised several substantial and important points” in other aspects of his appeal that would be decided in writing.
In a previous ruling, the three justices stated that Mr. Malkinson’s conviction was also unsafe due to evidence withholding.
Photographs of the victim’s hands revealed that the victim’s left middle fingernail was notably shorter than her other fingernails. Corroborating her claim that she scratched her attacker’s face.
“Cause doubt”
Lord Justice Holroyde stated in his decision that the failure to disclose the photographs “prevented the appellant from presenting his case in the best possible light and strengthened the prosecution’s case against him.”
Thus, Mr. Malkinson’s defence team could not tell the jury he had no facial abrasion.
Lord Justice Holroyde stated, “The jury’s verdicts might have been different if the photographs had been disclosed.”
In his decision, he also noted that two of the eyewitnesses who positively identified Mr. Malkinson had convictions for dishonesty.
Lord Justice Holroyde stated that if the prior convictions had been disclosed during the trial. It “would have cast doubt on their general honesty and affected the jury’s perception of whether they were civic-minded people doing their best to help.”
He added, “In our opinion, the challenge to the character and credibility of these two identifying witnesses could have affected the jury’s overall assessment of whether or not the appellant was accurately identified.”
Mr. Malkinson stated, “The evidence necessary to overturn my conviction has been sitting in police files for twenty years.”
“However, the [Criminal Cases Review Commission] made no effort to investigate, and it was left to the small charity Appeal to bring it to light.”
He stated that this resulted in “additional years in prison for a crime I did not commit.”
Assistant Chief Constable Sarah Jackson of the GMP stated that the force accepted the Court of Appeal’s decision. And added, “On behalf of the entire force, I sincerely apologize for this heinous miscarriage of justice.
She stated that she had “extended an invitation to meet with Mr. Malkinson and apologize personally for the time he spent in prison unjustly. And for everything he endured as a result.”
Ms. Jackson stated that she was unable to comment further because the force was being investigated by the police watchdog, the Independent Office of Police Conduct, about the case and because an active criminal investigation was underway.
