WE ARE A MAGAZINE ABOUT LAW AND JUSTICE | AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
October 13 2024
WE ARE A MAGAZINE ABOUT LAW AND JUSTICE | AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
Search
Close this search box.

CPS concede conviction of Andrew Malkinson ‘no longer safe’

CPS concede conviction of Andrew Malkinson ‘no longer safe’

Pic: Fran Robertson

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will not contest the appeal of Andrew Malkinson on the basis that his conviction is ‘no longer safe’. It is now up to the Court of Appeal to make the ultimate decision as to whether or not Malkinson’s conviction for a 2003 rape will be overturned, and on what basis, after a hearing scheduled for July.

As reported on the Justice Gap, Andrew Malkinson spent over 17 years in prison despite always protesting his innocence  (you can read Bob Woffinden on the case here). The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) referred his case to the appeal court in January after another man’s DNA was found on the woman’s clothing. As reported by Emily Dugan in the Guardian, until this week it was thought that Greater Manchester police and the CPS might fight the case.

‘I’ve suffered incalculably for the last 20 years as a result of my wrongful conviction, and I continue to suffer each day,’ commented Andrew Malkinson. ‘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.’

Emily Bolton, Andrew’s solicitor at the legal charity APPEAL, called the decision ‘a major milestone in Andy’s quest for justice.’ ‘The CPS – which nearly two decades ago prosecuted Andy – has accepted that his conviction should be overturned. However, it is for the Court of Appeal to decide whether to rule Andy’s conviction unsafe and, if so, on what basis. Andy’s 17 years of wrongful imprisonment were avoidable. We will be arguing that Andy’s conviction is unsafe not only in view of new DNA evidence, but because there were significant disclosure failures at his trial. It is important to dissect what went wrong in Andy’s case in order to protect victims of crime and prevent wrongful convictions in future.’

Related Posts