Connect with us

Published

on

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.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘I was kidnapped by the state’

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.”

Read more:
Miscarriages of justice body to review handling of wrongful rape conviction
Police ‘knew DNA on rape victim’s clothes didn’t match’ man who was convicted and put behind bars for 13 years

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.

Continue Reading

Politics

What are the next steps for the US stablecoin bill?

Published

on

By

What are the next steps for the US stablecoin bill?

What are the next steps for the US stablecoin bill?

Proponents of a bill to regulate stablecoins in the US Congress will likely take up another vote on the legislation in a matter of days without responding to concerns about President Donald Trump’s financial ties to the cryptocurrency industry.

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act, failed to get enough votes to pass in the US Senate on May 8 amid calls from some Democratic lawmakers to halt any legislation related to digital assets until Republicans could address Trump’s potential conflicts of interest.

Immediately following the vote, some lawmakers from both parties suggested they could reconsider the bill as early as this week, but without agreeing on a bipartisan path forward.

After the GENIUS Act failed to proceed in a 48 to 49 vote in the Senate, Majority Leader John Thune made a motion to reconsider, setting up a possible vote on the matter within days. A source familiar with the matter told Cointelegraph Republicans who backed the bill were unlikely to modify it to block Trump or any member of his administration from investing in digital assets, claiming it was beyond Congress’s authority under the Constitution.

“[…] this delay is not inherently detrimental,“ said Liat Shetret, vice president of global policy and regulation at blockchain analytics firm Elliptic. “We can expect the bill to return to the floor, with this pause giving both parties time to clarify provisions and address lawmakers’ concerns.”

The Cedar Innovation Foundation, an organization tied to the political action committee (PAC) Fairshake, issued a warning to Senate leadership to “avoid political games” and pass a stablecoin bill “in the coming days.” Fairshake spent more than $131 million to support candidates in the 2024 US elections, some of whom are currently serving in the House and Senate. There are still more than 500 days until the 2026 midterms, when many members of Congress are up for reelection.

On May 12, the Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of the GENIUS Act, suggesting another vote soon.

Related: US Treasury Secretary expresses support for crypto bills at hearing

Changes to stablecoin or market structure bills?

Should Republicans in the Senate reintroduce the bill without any changes, it’s unclear whether they would have enough support to clear a 60-vote majority to avoid a Democratic filibuster — a process to delay or sometimes block a vote on a bill.

The Trump family’s ties to the crypto platform World Liberty Financial and its stablecoin, USD1, have raised potential corruption concerns, as has offering the top holders of his TRUMP memecoin the chance to pay for access to the president through an exclusive dinner and reception. 

“[…] the Republicans’ bill did nothing to address Trump’s conflict, and instead voted to hand Trump the authority to write the rules over his and his competitors’ stablecoins,” said Democratic Representative Maxine Waters in a May 6 statement. She blocked a hearing to discuss a possible digital asset market structure bill, citing concerns about Trump’s “ownership of crypto.”

Democratic lawmakers have already introduced possible solutions to what they called the “biggest corruption scandal in the history of the White House” — with legislation in the House and Senate to bar members of Congress, the president, the vice president, and their families from profiting off memecoins. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chris Van Hollen also reportedly called on the president to fully divest from USD1 before making any possible deals with foreign governments.

The nonpartisan organization State Democracy Defenders Action reported in April that Trump’s crypto holdings were worth roughly $2.9 billion, which accounted for 40% of his wealth. This report came before the launch of World Liberty Financial’s stablecoin, which an Abu Dhabi-based investment firm said it would use to settle a $2 billion investment in Binance. Trump’s sons, Eric, Donald Trump Jr., and Barron, were all listed as “Web3 ambassadors” for the platform.

Magazine: Trump’s crypto ventures raise conflict of interest, insider trading questions

Continue Reading

Politics

PM rejects Enoch Powell comparison after ‘island of strangers’ comment

Published

on

By

PM rejects Enoch Powell comparison after 'island of strangers' comment

Sir Keir Starmer has rejected the comparison to Enoch Powell after he said the UK was at risk of becoming an “island of strangers” if migration does not come down.

The prime minister’s official spokesperson said migrants have made a “massive contribution” to society but the Tories “lost control of the system” and that is the point he was making.

The remark has drawn criticism from Labour backbenchers, who have compared it to the late Conservative MP’s inflammatory 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech.

In the speech, Mr Powell imagined a future multicultural Britain where the white population would find themselves “strangers in their own country” as a result of migration.

Among those to make the comparison was the former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, who said on X that “Talk of an “island of strangers” shockingly echoes the divisive language of Enoch Powell”.

However, the prime minister’s spokesperson said: “The PM rejects this comparison. He said that migrants have made a massive contribution to society.

“It is also right to say that between 2019 and 2024, the previous government lost control of the system. Migration needs to be controlled, fair and people that come here should integrate.”

More on Keir Starmer

Enoch Powell. Pic: PA
Image:
Enoch Powell. Pic: PA

Asked why the prime minister used such robust language, the spokesperson said he was not going to “shy away” from the issue of immigration and the British public want it to be reduced.

He added: “We have welcomed immigrants for decades, but it’s too high and must come down. Also, it’s important for our domestic skills system, which is good for our economy.”

What has the government announced?

Sir Keir made the comment at a news conference in which measures were announced to curb net migration, including banning care homes from recruiting overseas, new English language requirements for visa holders and stricter rules on gaining British citizenship.

The package is aimed at reducing the number of people coming to the UK by up to 100,000 per year, though the government has not officially set a target.

Who was Enoch Powell?

Enoch Powell was a Tory MP and the shadow defence secretary in the 1960s when a debate was raging about post-war immigration to Britain.

By the late 1960s, hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth citizens had exercised their legal right and settled in Britain, and it led to a quiet clampdown by the Labour government on immigration.

On 20 April 1968, Powell rose to his feet at a meeting of the Conservative Political Centre in Birmingham and declared Britons had “found themselves made strangers in their own country”.

Powell went on to say it had led to a shortage of hospital beds, school places, and “homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition”.

He was swiftly kicked out of the shadow cabinet.

Net migration – the difference between the number of people immigrating and emigrating to a country – soared when the UK left the EU in January 2020.

It reached 903,000 in the year to June 2023 before falling to 728,000 in mid-2024. But that is still well above its pre-Brexit high of 329,000 in the year up to June 2015.

Sir Keir said parts of the UK’s economy “seem almost addicted to importing cheap labour” rather than investing in skills at home.

However, it is not clear how the government plans to boost the domestic workforce, amid a UK skills shortage and record numbers of people being out of work.

According to the ONS, there are 9.2 million people of working age in the UK who are economically inactive, including 1.8m 18-24 year olds.

The prime minister’s spokesperson said the government is “focused on upskilling British workers” and “especially helping young people in the job sector” but did not elaborate how.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

PM’s ‘tough’ migration policies explained

On care homes, he said, around 40,000 care workers came over on visas for jobs that did not exist, and companies can recruit from that pool.

Earlier, a number of Labour MPs came to the prime minister’s defence. Rother Valley MP Jake Richards said on X that Sir Keir is “absolutely right to warn of the risk of becoming an ‘island of strangers’.

“Millions of people across the country have similar concerns. This theme must be central to missions across immigration, employment, work and tackling neighbourhood deprivation,” he said.

Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick went further, telling Sky News he believes the UK “already is an island of strangers”, naming several areas “where we are a very divided and segregated society”.

However former Labour home secretary Lord David Blunkett criticised the rhetoric, saying in a speech at a University of Law graduation ceremony: “I never felt I lived in, or had a part to play in, a country of strangers.

“I thought welcoming people from across the world was a tribute to our society, where people want to make their homes, to build a life and their economy and to contribute to our society.

“I think we need to be kind to each other, but we need a much kinder national world as well.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Who PM was really trying to echo with ‘island of strangers’ speech

Published

on

By

Who PM was really trying to echo with 'island of strangers' speech

Sir Keir Starmer is getting used to falling out with some of his MPs over policy decisions – be it on the winter fuel allowance, his approach to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza or welfare cuts.

But on Tuesday the prime minister found himself embroiled in a row with MPs over something entirely different – his language over immigration.

The prime minister’s argument that Britain “risked becoming an island of strangers” if immigration levels are not cut has sparked a backlash from some of his MPs, and the London mayor Sadiq Khan is alarmed that his own leader is using language similar to that of Enoch Powell.

Politics latest: Senior Labour figures distance themselves from PM’s speech

In his infamous 1968 Rivers Of Blood speech, Powell warned of a future where white people “found themselves made strangers in their own country”.

It was a speech that cost him his shadow cabinet job and made Powell one of the most divisive and controversial politicians in Britain. It is also a speech that the prime minister’s team is now frantically trying to distance itself against, with one insider telling me on Tuesday the PM’s team hadn’t realised the similarity and hadn’t intended the comparison.

The politician the prime minister was trying to channel was about as far away from Powell as you could get in the 1960s, when the debate of immigration and race relations raged. Sir Keir had wanted to echo former Labour home secretary Roy Jenkins who had always argued that immigration was good for Britain, but needed to be done at a speed the country could absorb.

Take this from Jenkins in the House of Commons in 1966: “Let there be no suggestion that immigration, in reasonable numbers, is a cross that we have to bear, and no pretence that if only those who have come could find jobs back at home our problems would be at an end.

“But it does not follow that we can absorb them without limit. We have to strike a balance. That is what we are trying to do and I feel that we have been reasonably successful in recent months. We cannot lay down absolute numerical quantities, but I think that we have struck a reasonable balance and also that in the past year we have made substantial progress towards producing a healthier atmosphere, in terms of integration, on both sides – amongst both the indigenous and the immigrant community.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

PM’s ‘tough’ migration policies explained

One person familiar with No 10’s approach told me: “We want a more cohesive society, we are not trying to pick fights.

“But the last Conservative government let in 2.3 million immigrants [in the three years to June 2024] and during that time built about 600,000 homes. That creates competition between people and that is typically at the lower end of the market. Just issuing visas and creating a sense of an unfair system is not a way to build cohesiveness.”

If you look at polling from YouGov, it seems the prime minister is more in step with public mood than those in his party criticising him, with 41% of all voters polled on Tuesday about his “island of strangers” remarks agreeing with the sentiment and having no issue with the language.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘We need to reduce immigration’

But it is true too that Labour’s approach lands particularly well with Reform voters, with 61% of them supportive of the PM’s words.

Beyond the battle of language, there will be battles ahead too over whether the prime minister’s policies will help or hinder the economy.

Read more:
What are Sir Keir Starmer’s new immigration rules?

Starmer’s migration package is significant – but is it enough?

There has long been an assumption that higher net migration is positive of the economy and public finances, but there is growing concern in Number 10 that the benefits are being overstated, as it fails to take into account the additional resources needed for public services and the effect of lowering wages, which affects productivity growth – none of which is factored into the economic forecasts of the Office of Budget Responsibility.

There will be those in business that don’t like the cuts to visas. There will be those in government that will worry about the economic impact of cuts to visas – although the chancellor was on the front row for the prime minister’s speech on Monday. There will be those on the Labour left that will be uncomfortable about it.

I suspect the prime minister will be uncomfortable about the row over his language that has seen him attacked on both sides, as the left accuse him of trying to ape the far right and his opponents accuse him of being a “chameleon” for making the opposite argument on immigration when he was running for the Labour leadership in 2020.

But where his team think they are right is on the policy, and early polling suggests that voters from across the political divide broadly agree.

Continue Reading

Trending