Andrew Malkinson, exonerated of a rape he did not commit, says the Government wants to take money from his compensation to cover legal costs. He told the BBC the deductions would include his legal fees. They would also cover up to £10,000 for the experts who helped him prove his innocence.
Mr Malkinson spent 17 years in prison, protesting his innocence throughout. Another man now stands convicted of the attack.
Some have called his case one of Britain’s worst miscarriages of justice. A judge-led inquiry is now examining his conviction. It is looking at how DNA evidence came to be lost. It is also examining the suppression of evidence that would have cleared him at his first appeal.
Police had also produced two ‘eyewitnesses’ who claimed to have seen him near the scene. Their evidence later fell apart. It emerged that they had been in police custody at the time they said they remembered seeing him. The defence did not receive this information.
Mr Malkinson received a compensation award. However, he regards paying for the intensive work of the experts who proved his innocence as a further injustice. He told the BBC that his objection was one of principle.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he said: “I don’t know what the justification is but it doesn’t make any sense at all to do that, except to say obviously they are trying to claw back as much as possible.”
He added: “It’s really wrong, it feels vindictive. Why doesn’t the state, the perpetrator of the injustice, pay the costs for the experts and legal fees because they caused the damage, not me?”
Mr Malkinson said he welcomed the conviction of the real perpetrator. He said he hoped the victim would find closure.
The victim has since said that she raised doubts with police when she saw Mr Malkinson in the dock. According to her, officers assured her they had the right man and told her to say so when she gave evidence.
The Ministry of Justice told the BBC: “The Law Commission is currently consulting on the law relating to criminal appeals, including compensation for miscarriages of justice, and we will carefully consider their findings.”
