Wrongly convicted prisoners pay board and lodging on release!

Whitewavemark2

The police may have destroyed the undisclosed evidence. So where does that leave him!?

No, they didn't.

The evidence was preserved and DNA on the victim's clothing was found to match an entirely different person whose DNA is on the National DNA Database, which means the other man has been suspected of another crime.

Whitewavemark2

Callistemon21

Whitewavemark2

He was imprisoned for 7 years initially, but because he kept protesting his innocence - they kept lengthening his sentence 😮.

The reason he was kept in prison was because the police failed to disclose evidence that they had, which almost certainly means he would not have been imprisoned.

Absolutely scandalous.

The question really is - was the police action criminal?

His defence barrister perhaps failed too because he or she should have demanded to see the evidence which could have cleared him.

If the police or prosecution refused to release that evidence or denied knowledge of it then whoever did so can be sued.

Apparently the police never disclosed that they had the evidence, and as it is usual to disclose evidence both used or not used in the trial, presumably the defence had no idea that this evidence existed, because they trusted the police to be honest.

presumably the defence had no idea that this evidence existed, because they trusted the police to be honest

🤔 I'm not so sure that a good defence barrister would assume that!
The police must surely have lied about the evidence.

Surely, we (taxpayers) have already paid for his board and lodgings? It's ridiculous!

Callistemon21, I know, straight from the horse's mouth (a policeman) that sometimes they do indeed lie to get a conviction - and also plant evidence. He had no choice but to keep in with that crowd until he could get a transfer elsewhere.

Whitewavemark2

The police may have destroyed the undisclosed evidence. So where does that leave him!?

Mr Henry told the court that samples of DNA which were “rigorously tested” had been preserved over many years but that “most regrettably” items of the victim’s clothing had been “destroyed by Greater Manchester Police”.

At the time of Mr Malkinson’s trial, there was no DNA evidence linking him to the crime and the prosecution case against him was based solely on identification evidence.

So they did.
That was convenient for the police.

Unfortunately the defence can’t use torture to get the police to admit there’s other evidence - everything relevant to the case has to be produced whether it supports the prosecution’s or defence’s case or not, but this isn’t the first time the police have not produced evidence that doesn’t support their case and it won’t, I’m sure, be the last. Note I refer to the police, not the prosecution - I don’t believe that the CPS would agree to take a case if they knew the police were suppressing evidence but that’s based on professional ethics. There’s a rotten apple everywhere but I don’t for a moment suggest that was the case here. I have faith in the integrity of my professional brethren unless the contrary is proved, which it sometimes is as I have seen for myself.

Hetty the idea is that the taxpayer doesn’t pay twice.

Callistemon21

Whitewavemark2

The police may have destroyed the undisclosed evidence. So where does that leave him!?

No, they didn't.

The evidence was preserved and DNA on the victim's clothing was found to match an entirely different person whose DNA is on the National DNA Database, which means the other man has been suspected of another crime.

I was just repeating what I heard on the podcast with the ex-DPP - so I’m pleased to hear that was incorrect.

Whitewavemark2

Callistemon21

Whitewavemark2

The police may have destroyed the undisclosed evidence. So where does that leave him!?

No, they didn't.

The evidence was preserved and DNA on the victim's clothing was found to match an entirely different person whose DNA is on the National DNA Database, which means the other man has been suspected of another crime.

I was just repeating what I heard on the podcast with the ex-DPP - so I’m pleased to hear that was incorrect.

You are right.

I heard that the evidence was tested again before the last appeal in 2009? but perhaps that was wrong information.

Callistemon21

Whitewavemark2

Callistemon21

Whitewavemark2

The police may have destroyed the undisclosed evidence. So where does that leave him!?

No, they didn't.

The evidence was preserved and DNA on the victim's clothing was found to match an entirely different person whose DNA is on the National DNA Database, which means the other man has been suspected of another crime.

I was just repeating what I heard on the podcast with the ex-DPP - so I’m pleased to hear that was incorrect.

You are right.

I heard that the evidence was tested again before the last appeal in 2009? but perhaps that was wrong information.

The clothing was destroyed by the police unlawfully as there was a preservation order preventing this.

APPEAL faced challenges in obtaining this DNA evidence as Greater Manchester Police had unlawfully lost or destroyed exhibits including items of the victim’s clothing. Luckily, samples taken from the victim's clothing along with various swabs had been retained by a separate body, Forensic Archive Limited. This meant that some new DNA analysis could, thankfully, still take place

At liberty, but not free
Although now out of prison, Andy remains on the sex offender’s register and with severe restrictions on his freedom. Armed with compelling new evidence, APPEAL is determined to exonerate Andy and expose the systemic failures which caused him to be wrongly convicted and made it so difficult for him to access justice.

appeal.org.uk/andy-malkinson

This is unreasonable, particulary when from time to time there are reports of prisoners getting quite hefty compensation for ridiculously trivial events. This poor man has had his relationships and life chances ruined; nothing can compensate him, and as he didn't choose to have state funded board and lodging, why should he pay for it?

as he didn't choose to have state funded board and lodging, why should he pay for it?
👍

Absolutely! It should be about far more than putting someone back where they were financially, it should be about compensating them for loss of freedom and all the years that their lives couldn't move forward.

I heard that on the radio but was sure I had heard wrongly. I think it is disgusting.

I couldn't believe this when I heard it on the news yesterday. For christ's sake, give the poor guy his compensation with no deductions! He has lost the best years of his life in prison for something he did not do, the government owe him.

"In 2014, Richard Foster, then chair of the CCRC, told parliament’s justice committee that the watchdog had suffered “the biggest cut that has taken place anywhere in the criminal justice system”, telling members: “For every £10 that my predecessor had to spend on a case a decade ago, I have £4 today”. "
www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jul/27/quashing-of-andrew-malkinsons-conviction-confirms-failings-of-criminal-review-watchdog

Yet another organisation that has been failing because of being under funded.

Disgraceful. What would be better is to charge those who are actually in there. Make them work and pay their way. If they were later found to be innocent then that money would be refunded. However, if they are there because they DID commit a crime then it makes sense for them to make a contribution so the taxpayer does not get clobbered for it all.

That's my reasoning anyway.

Jackiest

They intend making it easier to get a conviction to raise the conviction rate. Yes the conviction rate for rape is low but you still have to make sure the person is actually guilty.

My thoughts exactly

Germanshepherdsmum

The link I posted shows how compensation is calculated, taking into account living costs you would otherwise have paid.

There is a lack in logic in this argument. He has been denied earnings therefore he has not made any savings.

Yes, it is absolutely true and absolutely wrong.
I worked within the penal system for over 30 years and this was put in in the 90's.
There was a furore at the time but the then Conservative government was adamant.
The accomodation is some jails was and is horrific and the food worse - no one would pay for it.
Migrants are better served.

Migrants are better served.
Well, if we are looking for spurious comparisons, so are MPs in their subsidised restaurants.

He has been denied earnings but he hasn’t had to spend money on the usual living expenses. There is logic to the argument if you think about it - the taxpayer is reimbursed for the living costs they have paid and he has a lump sum to recompense him for his inability to save- but I don’t make the rules so don’t blame me!

LovesBach

This is unreasonable, particulary when from time to time there are reports of prisoners getting quite hefty compensation for ridiculously trivial events. This poor man has had his relationships and life chances ruined; nothing can compensate him, and as he didn't choose to have state funded board and lodging, why should he pay for it?

Exactly!
I read that this law was brought in as it was thought taxpayers would be angry that those who got out due to a technicality received big payouts.Which did happen.
Some cases are different tho, and this case is one of them so he shouldn’t have to pay a penny.

Why don’t you read the links I’ve posted? Why do people on Gransnet think they know better than the Supreme Court?

Germanshepherdsmum

He has been denied earnings but he hasn’t had to spend money on the usual living expenses. There is logic to the argument if you think about it - the taxpayer is reimbursed for the living costs they have paid and he has a lump sum to recompense him for his inability to save- but I don’t make the rules so don’t blame me!

He's been denied everything not just the ability to earn a living. He's been denied the opportunity to live his own life, have a relationship, have children, visit friends and family, grow some flowers, plant a tree, eat a Mcdonalds (if he wanted to), take a trip to the sea or go abroad etc etc anything that makes life worth living and since leaving prison he has had to live with the shadow of a serious conviction hanging over him. IMO there is no logic to this, it seems vindictive and unjust. tbh I don't care which political party decided this was a good idea but it "stinks" !

It was a policy endorsed by The House Of Lords foxie48