There should be an inquiry into the “total public mess” caused by a miscarriage of justice that led to an innocent man spending 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit, a former solicitor general has said.
Lord Edward Garnier KC told Sky News that the case of Andrew Malkinson was “astonishing” and “gets more astonishing pretty well by the week”.
He said it was a “terribly bad and shocking case and we should be ashamed of what has happened”.
A public inquiry needs to report within six months and be led by someone of “considerable stature and independence”, Lord Garnier added.
Case files obtained by the 57-year-old and seen by Sky News show that prosecutors knew in 2007 that forensic testing had identified a searchable male DNA profile on the rape victim’s top that did not match his.
The documents show that DNA in saliva, from an unidentified male, was found on the victim’s vest near a bite wound her attacker inflicted.
Image: It appears Andrew Malkinson could have been released from prison much earlier
A meeting was held between police, prosecutors and forensic scientists.
A Crown Prosecution Service caseworker said: “If it is assumed that the saliva came from the offender, then it does not derive from Malkinson.
Advertisement
“This is surprising because the area of the clothing that the saliva was recovered from was crime specific.”
At that point, Mr Malkinson could 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 comment was made on 24 August 2009. On 14 July 2010, a CCRC worker wrote: “My view is that there is nothing to be gained by having any of the DNA exhibits re-tested yet again.
“This is because, as stated above, the ID evidence from the victim and the two witnesses is forceful and, in any event, the jury was told that there was no DNA evidence that could help them.”
Another comment, later that month, says the “only meaningful review would be by a forensic provider which would be expensive, and I do not think on the basis of the material available that it would be a reasonable course of action”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
9:01
‘I have been innocent all along’
Lord Ken Macdonald, a former director of public prosecutions, said identification evidence can be “so often mistaken”.
He told 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 call for a public inquiry, Lord Garnier said “somebody of considerable stature and independence needs to unravel all this”.
He added that they need to 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 said: “It is clear Mr Malkinson was wrongly convicted of this crime and we share the deep regret that this happened.
“Evidence of a new DNA profile found on the victim’s clothing in 2007 was not ignored. It was disclosed to the defence team representing Mr Malkinson for their 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.”
A woman who is under police investigation after assisting the suicide of her husband at Dignitas in Switzerland has told Sky News she has no regrets.
Louise Shackleton has spoken publicly for the first time since her husband’s death in December, as parliament prepares to vote again on legislation to introduce assisted dying in England and Wales.
Mrs Shackleton surrendered herself to police after returning from Switzerland having seen her husband Anthony die. He had been suffering with motor neurone disease for six years.
“I have committed a crime, which I have admitted to, of assisting him by simply pushing him on to a plane and being with him, which I don’t regret for one moment. He was my husband and I loved him,” she said.
“We talked at length over two years about this. What he said to me on many occasions is ‘look at my options, look at what my options are. I can either go there and I can die peacefully, with grace, without pain, without suffering or I could be laid in a bed not being able to move, not even being able to look at anything unless you move my head’.
“He didn’t have options. What he wanted was nothing more than a good death.”
The law in the UK prohibits people from assisting in the suicide of others, but prosecutions have been rare.
Image: Louise Shackleton has spoken publicly for the first time since her husband Anthony’s death
In a statement, a North Yorkshire Police spokesman told Sky News: “The investigation is ongoing. There is nothing further to add at this stage.”
The next vote on the assisted dying bill for England and Wales has been delayed by three weeks to give MPs time to consider amendments.
The legislation would permit a person who is terminally ill with less than six months to live to legally end their life after approval by two doctors and an expert panel.
‘He was at total peace with his decision’
Mrs Shackleton says she saw her husband “physically and mentally” relax once on the flight to Switzerland.
She said: “We had the most wonderful four days.
“He was laughing. He was at total peace with his decision.
“It was in those four days that I realised that he wanted the peaceful death more than he wanted to suffer and stay with me, which was hard, but that’s how resolute he was in having this peace.
“I was his wife, we’d been together 25 years, we’d known each other since we were 18. I couldn’t do anything else but help him.”
‘We need to safeguard people’
She said the hardest part of the journey came after her husband’s death.
“There was this panic and this fear that I was leaving him,” she said. “That was a horrific experience.
“If the law had changed in this country, I would have been with family, family would have been with us, family would’ve been with him. But as it was, that couldn’t happen.”
Opponents to the assisted dying bill have raised concerns about the safety of vulnerable people and the risk of coercion and a change in attitudes toward the elderly, seriously ill and disabled.
They say improvements to palliative care should be a priority.
“I think that we need to safeguard people,” said Mrs Shackleton. “I think that sometimes we need to suffer other people’s choices, and when I mean suffer I mean we have to acknowledge that whilst we’re not comfortable with those, that we need to respect other people, other people wishes.”
Anthony, who died aged 59, was a furniture restorer who had earned worldwide recognition for making rocking horses.
“I think the measure of the man is that nobody has ever said a bad word about him in the whole of his life because he was just so caring and giving,” his widow said.
‘This is about a dying person’s choice’
She said she had chosen to speak publicly because of a promise she had made him.
“I felt that my husband’s journey shouldn’t be in vain. We discussed this on our last day and my husband made me promise to tell his story.
“He told me to fight and the simple thing that I’m fighting for is people to have the choice.
“This is about a dying person’s choice to either follow their journey through with disease or to die peacefully when they want to, on their terms, and have a good death. It’s that simple.”
A former Labour MP who quit the party over Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership has welcomed the landmark Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman as a “victory for feminists”.
Rosie Duffield, now the independent MP for Canterbury, said the judgment helped resolve the “lack of clarity” that has existed in the politics around the issue “for years”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:19
How do you define a woman in law?
The judges were asked to rule on how “sex” is defined in the 2010 Equality Act – whether that means biological sex or “certificated” sex, as legally defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
Their unanimous decision was that the definition of a “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to “a biological woman and biological sex”.
Asked what she made about comments by fellow independent MP John McDonnell – who said the court “failed to hear the voice of a single trans person” and that the decision “lacked humanity and fairness” as a result, she said: “This ruling doesn’t affect trans people in the slightest.
“It’s about women’s rights – women’s rights to single sex spaces, women’s rights, not to be discriminated against.
“It literally doesn’t change a single thing for trans rights and that lack of understanding from a senior politician about the law is a bit worrying, actually.”
However, Maggie Chapman, a Scottish Green MSP, disagreed with Ms Duffield and said she was “concerned” about the impact the ruling would have on trans people “and for the services and facilities they have been using and have had access to for decades now”.
Image: Susan Smith and Marion Calder, directors of For Women Scotland celebrate after the ruling. Pic: Reuters
“One of the grave concerns that we have with this ruling is that it will embolden people to challenge trans people who have every right to access services,” she said.
“We know that over the last few years… their [trans people’s] lives have become increasingly difficult, they have been blocked from accessing services they need.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:12
‘Today’s ruling only stokes the culture war further’
Delivering the ruling at the London court on Wednesday, Lord Hodge said: “But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.
Image: Campaigners celebrate outside the Supreme Court. Pic: PA
“The Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.
“This is the application of the principle of discrimination by association. Those statutory protections are available to transgender people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate.”
Asked whether she believed the judgment could “draw a line” under the culture war, Ms Chapman told Fortescue: “Today’s judgment only stokes that culture war further.”
And she said that while Lord Hodge was correct to say there were protections in law for trans people in the 2020 Equality Act, the judgment “doesn’t prevent things happening”.
Apple Podcasts
This content is provided by Apple Podcasts, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Apple Podcasts cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Apple Podcasts cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Apple Podcasts cookies for this session only.
“It may offer protections once bad things have happened, once harassment, once discrimination, once bigotry, once assaults have happened,” she said.
She also warned some groups “aren’t going to be satisfied with today’s ruling”.
“We know that there are individuals and there are groups who actually want to roll back even further – they want to get rid of the Gender Recognition Act from 2004,” she said.
“I think today’s ruling just emboldens those views.”
Arsenal have reached the semi-finals of the Champions League after a dramatic victory over holders Real Madrid in Spain.
The north London side, who became the first English team to win twice at the Bernabeu following their triumph there 19 years ago, will face Paris Saint-Germain in the last four after the French side beat Aston Villa on Tuesday.
It is the third time the Gunners have made it through to the semis of the top club football tournament in Europe, and the first since 2009.
Arsenal went into the second leg of their quarter-final clash on Wednesday with a 3-0 lead.
Backed by a raucous home crowd, Madrid tried to get off to a strong start and Kylian Mbappe scored after two minutes. However, the goal was disallowed for a clear offside.
Arsenal had the chance to go ahead in the 13th minute but winger Bukayo Saka missed a penalty.
The Spanish hosts were awarded a penalty of their own about 10 minutes later when Mbappe stumbled under pressure from Declan Rice in the box – but the decision was overturned by VAR.
More on Arsenal
Related Topics:
Saka atoned for his tepid penalty as he chipped the ball past Madrid’s keeper Thibaut Courtois when put through on goal by auxiliary striker Mikel Merino in the 65th minute.
But Arsenal were pegged back just two minutes later as Vinicius Junior caught William Saliba dawdling on the ball and fired Real Madrid level.
Arsenal’s resolute defending kept the home side at bay until Gabriel Martinelli made a late break through the home side’s defence to put his side 2-1 ahead three minutes into injury time, as the Gunners made it 5-1 on aggregate.
Image: (L-R) Arsenal’s Declan Rice and Mikel Merino celebrate after the defeat against Real Madrid. Pic: AP
‘We knew we were going to win’, says Rice
Arsenal midfielder Declan Rice has insisted his team are intent on winning the Champions League after their victory in Madrid.
Speaking to TNT Sport, Rice, who was named player of the match, said: “It’s such a special night, a historic one for the club. We have the objective of playing the best and winning the competition.
“We had so much belief and confidence from that first leg and came here to win the game. We knew we were going to suffer but we knew we were going to win. We had it in our minds, then we did it [in] real life. What a night.
“I knew when I signed, this club was on an upward trajectory. It’s been tough in the Premier League but in this competition we’ve done amazingly well.
“It’s PSG next, who are an amazing team.”
‘We have to be very proud of ourselves’, says Arteta
Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta told TNT Sport: “One of the best nights in my football career.
“We played against a team with the biggest history.
“To be able to win the tie in the manner we have done, I think we have to be very proud of ourselves.”
He added: “The history we have in this competition is so short. The third time in our history of what we have just done and we have to build on that. All this experience is going to help us, for sure.”
Real Madrid were seeking their third Champions League title in four seasons.
Mbappe twisted ankle
Their forward Mbappe twisted his right ankle during the game and was jeered by part of the crowd when his substitution was announced after a lacklustre performance.
The French star, who is still looking for his first Champions League title, was replaced by Brahim Diaz in the 75th minute following his injury. He was able to walk off the pitch by himself, but was limping slightly.
The other semi-final will be between Barcelona and Inter Milan.
The first legs are set to be played on 29 and 30 April, with the second legs on 6 and 7 May.