Andrew Malkinson: Sir Keir Starmer urged to co-operate with potential public inquiry into ‘appalling’ miscarriage of justice

Published

2 years ago

August 21, 2023

admin

Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to “say something” about the case of a man who spent 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit before having his conviction overturned.

Former justice secretary Robert Buckland has said the Labour leader – who was director of public prosecutions (DPP) and head of the CPS from 2008 to 2013 – should also co-operate with any potential public inquiry into the miscarriage of justice.

Andrew Malkinson was found guilty of raping a woman in Greater Manchester in 2003 and the next year was jailed for life with a minimum term of seven years.

He remained in jail for another decade because he maintained his innocence.

Last month he had his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal after DNA evidence that linked another man to the crime was produced by his defence team.

Case files obtained by the 57-year-old, seen by Sky News, show that officers and prosecutors knew forensic testing in 2007 had identified a searchable male DNA profile on the rape victim’s clothing that did not match his.

Notes of a meeting between the Forensic Science Service, the CPS and Greater Manchester Police (GMP) in December 2009 – a year into Sir Keir’s tenure – suggest the CPS understood the possible importance of the 2007 DNA find.

There is no suggestion that Sir Keir had any involvement in the case or was personally aware of it.

However, Mr Buckland told Sky News: “Some comment from Sir Keir Starmer would be welcome.

“The DPP isn’t going to be over every case – but the prime minister has spoken about it, the lord chancellor has spoken about it and the only people we have not heard from are Labour and Keir Starmer,” the former justice secretary added.

“I would have thought it would be good for Sir Keir as a former senior lawyer to say something about it and to say he will co-operate with any public inquiry.”

As director of public prosecutions, Sir Keir was the country’s top prosecutor at the time.

As operational decisions are taken at a regional level – his role as head of the CPS has come under scrutiny in light of previous statements he has made.

In April, the Labour leader told Sky News he took “full responsibility for every decision of the Crown Prosecution Service when I was director of public prosecutions”.

“When I was director of public prosecutions, it meant that when we succeeded in some very important prosecutions, as we did… I took the credit for that on behalf of the organisation,” he said at the time.

“Where we got it wrong, I carried the can.”

Sir Keir is yet to make a public comment on Mr Malkinson’s case – which was prosecuted before he joined the CPS – but his deputy, Angela Rayner, told Sky News there had been an “appalling miscarriage of justice” when asked about the timing of the DNA discovery.

“There are serious questions to ask about why that information wasn’t provided and that they didn’t go after the real perpetrator, who of course was then free to carry on doing these horrendous crimes,” she added.

CPS guidance states it must write to the body responsible for investigating possible miscarriages of justice, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), “at the earliest opportunity about any case in which there is doubt about the safety of the conviction”.

But the case files show both the police and the CPS chose to take no further action and there is no record the CPS directly informed the CCRC.

The CPS claims Mr Malkinson’s lawyers were informed directly of the new DNA evidence.

The CCRC refused to order further forensic testing or refer the case for appeal in 2012, with the case files citing fears about costs.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Mr Malkinson’s case was described as “astonishing” by former solicitor general Lord Edward Garnier KC, who said there should be an inquiry into the “total public mess” that has unfolded following his exoneration.

He said it was a “terribly bad and shocking case and we should be ashamed of what has happened” and that a public inquiry needs to report within six months and be led by someone of “considerable stature and independence”.

A CPS 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.”

In light of the revelations, the CCRC has said it will review Mr Malkinson’s case.

A spokesman said the commission would be as “open as we can be within our statutory constraints” about “lessons to be learned”.

“We recognise that Mr Malkinson has had a very long journey to clear his name and it is plainly wrong that he spent 17 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

“We have already been in touch with Greater Manchester Police and with the Crown Prosecution Service to offer our assistance in any of their inquiries.”

Ellie Reeves, Labour’s shadow justice minister, told Sky News that Sir Keir was not the director of public prosecutions when charges were bought – although it was pointed out he was in the role when the charges were referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

She added that while she had not spoken to her party leader about the matter, he has been “clear that this wasn’t something that came across his desk when he was director of public prosecutions”.

Ms Reeves said: “Obviously there has been a huge miscarriage of justice in this case, and I’m sure that will be looked at. But Keir has been clear it wasn’t something that ever came across his desk.”

The Attorney General and the Home Office both declined to comment.

Politics

What is a wealth tax, how would it work in the UK and where else has one?

Published

12 mins ago

July 9, 2025

admin

What is a wealth tax, how would it work in the UK and where else has one?

The idea of a wealth tax has raised its head – yet again – as the government attempts to balance its books.

Downing Street refused to rule out a wealth tax after former Labour leader Lord Kinnock told Sky News he thinks the government should introduce one.

Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said: “The prime minister has repeatedly said those with the broadest shoulders should carry the largest burden.”

While there has never been a wealth tax in the UK, the notion was raised under Rishi Sunak after the COVID years – and rejected – and both Harold Wilson’s and James Callaghan’s Labour governments in the 1970s seriously considered implementing one.

Sky News looks at what a wealth tax is, how it could work in the UK, and which countries already have one.

What is a wealth tax?

A wealth tax is aimed at reducing economic inequality to redistribute wealth and to raise revenue.

It is a direct levy on all, or most of, an individual’s, household’s or business’s total net wealth, rather than their income.

The tax typically includes the total market value of assets, including savings, investments, property and other forms of wealth – minus a person’s debts.

Unlike capital gains tax, which is paid when an asset is sold at a profit, a wealth tax is normally an annual charge based on the value of assets owned, even if they are not sold.

A one-off wealth tax, often used after major crises, could also be an option to raise a substantial amount of revenue in one go.

How could it work in the UK?

Advocates of a UK wealth tax, including Lord Kinnock, have proposed an annual 2% tax on wealth above £10m.

Wealth tax campaign group Tax Justice UK has calculated this would affect about 20,000 people – fewer than 0.04% of the population – and raise £24bn a year.

Because of how few people would pay it, Tax Justice says that would make it easy for HMRC to collect the tax.

The group proposes people self-declare asset values, backed up by a compliance team at HMRC who could have a register of assets.

Which countries have or have had a wealth tax?

In 1990, 12 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries had a net wealth tax, but just four have one now: Colombia, Norway, Spain and Switzerland.

France and Italy levy wealth taxes on selected assets.

Colombia

Since 2023, residents in the South American country are subject to tax on their worldwide wealth, but can exclude the value of their household up to 509m pesos (£92,500).

The tax is progressive, ranging from a 0.5% rate to 1.5% for the most wealthy until next year, then 1% for the wealthiest from 2027.

Norway

There is a 0.525% municipal wealth tax for individuals with net wealth exceeding 1.7m kroner (about £125,000) or 3.52m kroner (£256,000) for spouses.

Norway also has a state wealth tax of 0.475% based on assets exceeding a net capital tax basis of 1.7m kroner (£125,000) or 3.52m kroner (£256,000) for spouses, and 0.575% for net wealth in excess of 20.7m kroner (£1.5m).

The maximum combined wealth tax rate is 1.1%.

The Norwegian Labour coalition government also increased dividend tax to 20% in 2023, and with the wealth tax, it prompted about 80 affluent business owners, with an estimated net worth of £40bn, to leave Norway.

Spain

Residents in Spain have to pay a progressive wealth tax on worldwide assets, with a €700,000 (£600,000) tax free allowance per person in most areas and homes up to €300,000 (£250,000) tax exempt.

The progressive rate goes from 0.2% for taxable income for assets of €167,129 (£144,000) up to 3.5% for taxable income of €10.6m (£9.146m) and above.

It has been reported that more than 12,000 multimillionaires have left Spain since the government introduced the higher levy at the end of 2022.

Switzerland

All of the country’s cantons (districts) have a net wealth tax based on a person’s taxable net worth – different to total net worth.

It takes into account the balance of an individual’s worldwide gross assets, including bank account balances, bonds, shares, life insurances, cars, boats, properties, paintings, jewellery – minus debts.

Switzerland also works on a progressive rate, ranging from 0.3% to 0.5%, with a relatively low starting point at which people are taxed on their wealth, such as 50,000 CHF (£46,200) in several cantons.

Politics

Jingye and Whitehall officials hold talks over British Steel future

Published

3 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Jingye and Whitehall officials hold talks over British Steel future

The Chinese owner of British Steel has held fresh talks with government officials in a bid to break the impasse over ministers’ determination not to compensate it for seizing control of the company.

Sky News has learnt that executives from Jingye Group met senior civil servants from the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) late last week to discuss ways to resolve the standoff.

Whitehall sources said the talks had been cordial, but that no meaningful progress had been made towards a resolution.

Money blog: €1 home goes on sale – but there are T&Cs

Jingye wants the government to agree to pay it hundreds of millions of pounds for taking control of British Steel in April – a move triggered by the Chinese group’s preparations for the permanent closure of its blast furnaces in Scunthorpe.

Such a move would have cost thousands of jobs and ended Britain’s centuries-old ability to produce virgin steel.

Jingye had been in talks for months to seek £1bn in state aid to facilitate the Scunthorpe plant’s transition to greener steelmaking, but was offered just half that sum by ministers.

British Steel has not yet been formally nationalised, although that remains a probable outcome.

Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, has previously dismissed the idea of compensating Jingye, saying British Steel’s equity was essentially worthless.

Last month, he met his Chinese counterpart, where the issue of British Steel was discussed between the two governments in person for the first time.

Jingye has hired the leading City law firm Linklaters to explore the recovery of hundreds of millions of pounds it invested in the Scunthorpe-based company before the government seized control of it.

News of last week’s meeting comes as British steelmakers face an anxious wait to learn whether their exports to the US face swingeing tariffs as part of US President Donald Trump’s trade war.

Sky News’s economics and data editor, Ed Conway, revealed this week that the UK would miss a White House-imposed deadline to agree a trade deal on steel and aluminium this week.

Jingye declined to comment, while a spokesman for the Department for Business and Trade said: “We acted quickly to ensure the continued operations of the blast furnaces but recognise that securing British Steel’s long-term future requires private sector investment.

“We have not nationalised British Steel and are working closely with Jingye on options for the future, and we will continue work on determining the best long-term sustainable future for the site.”