There must be an inquiry into the “total public mess” attributable to a miscarriage of justice that led to an harmless man spending 17 years in jail for a rape he didn’t commit, a former solicitor basic has stated.
Lord Edward Garnier KC instructed Sky News that the case of Andrew Malkinson was “astonishing” and “gets more astonishing pretty well by the week”.
He stated it was a “terribly bad and shocking case and we should be ashamed of what has happened”.
A public inquiry must report inside six months and be led by somebody of “considerable stature and independence”, Lord Garnier added.
Mr Malkinson had his conviction quashed final month after DNA linking one other man to the crime was produced.
Case recordsdata obtained by the 57-year-old and seen by Sky News present that prosecutors knew in 2007 that forensic testing had recognized a searchable male DNA profile on the rape sufferer’s high that didn’t match his.
The paperwork present that DNA in saliva, from an unidentified male, was discovered on the sufferer’s vest close to a chunk wound her attacker inflicted.
A gathering was held between police, prosecutors and forensic scientists.
A Crown Prosecution Service caseworker stated: “If it’s assumed that the saliva got here from the offender, then it doesn’t derive from Malkinson.
“This is surprising because the area of the clothing that the saliva was recovered from was crime specific.”
At that time, Mr Malkinson may have had his case referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
But the CCRC concluded: “Just because it appears there is someone else’s DNA on the complainant’s vest … cannot surely produce a hope of a successful referral in view of all the other strong ID evidence – and the case was really based on the ID evidence which has been approved by the Court of Appeal.”
That remark was made on 24 August 2009. On 14 July 2010, a CCRC employee wrote: “My view is that there is nothing to be gained by having any of the DNA exhibits re-tested yet again.
“This is as a result of, as said above, the ID proof from the sufferer and the 2 witnesses is forceful and, in any occasion, the jury was instructed that there was no DNA proof that would assist them.”
Another comment, later that month, says the “solely significant evaluation could be by a forensic supplier which might be costly, and I don’t suppose on the premise of the fabric out there that it might be an inexpensive plan of action”.
Read extra:
Andrew Malkinson ‘will not must repay jail residing prices’
Unfair for wrongfully convicted inmates to pay again jail board and lodging prices, Rishi Sunak says
Lord Ken Macdonald, a former director of public prosecutions, stated identification proof will be “so often mistaken”.
He instructed Sky News: “If you have evidence that is inconsistent with identification evidence, it’s absolutely the first rule that you investigate that evidence carefully, thoroughly, rigorously, precisely because witnesses are so often – bitter experience had shown – so often mistaken.”
Regarding his name for a public inquiry, Lord Garnier stated “somebody of considerable stature and independence needs to unravel all this”.
He added that they should give “recommendations about the future of the CCRC and its management and its resourcing, about the conduct of Greater Manchester Police and the conduct of the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to this particular case”.
A Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson stated: “It is clear Mr Malkinson was wrongly convicted of this crime and we share the deep regret that this happened.
“Evidence of a brand new DNA profile discovered on the sufferer’s clothes in 2007 was not ignored. It was disclosed to the defence group representing Mr Malkinson for his or her consideration.
“In addition, searches of the DNA databases were conducted to identify any other possible suspects. At that time there were no matches and therefore no further investigation could be carried out.”
Source: information.sky.com”