Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years in prison for a rape in 2003 he did not commit, has accused the miscarriage of justice watchdog of having ‘an attitude problem’ in a press interview after his conviction was overturned earlier this summer. Is that fair?
As a long-term observer of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), I think it is. This is the second instalment of a two-part article on the implications of a scandal that has prompted two inquiries into the commission—one instigated by the watchdog itself (to be headed by Chris Henley KC) and a second launched by justice secretary Alex Chalk KC.
Malkinson (pictured) spent two decades trying to clear his name. It has since come to light that the CCRC was aware of the DNA evidence that would ultimately exonerate him at the time of his first application in 2009.
This week the Court of Appeal revisited a 1991 murder
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
