Andrew Malkinson ‘not finished' fighting for reform after wrongful conviction
The 59-year-old had his conviction overturned in 2023 after years protesting his innocence.
Mr Malkinson, who told The Sunday Times his 'life was desolated' by the wrongful conviction, says he is determined to change the justice system, starting with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
'I haven't finished. I want to change a lot more,' he said.
'It's a good feeling that something so dreadful and tragic is leading to real change.'
It comes amid news Dame Vera Baird KC will become the interim chairwoman of the CCRC.
The barrister will take up the post from June 9 until December 8 next year, and is tasked with carrying out an urgent review into the running of the independent body and making sure lessons have been learnt from previous cases.
Mr Malkinson said he remained 'incandescent' at the CCRC, as well as the Government's compensation scheme, which makes it difficult for wrongly-convicted people to receive payouts.
'This is an assault on innocent people,' he said.
'It's an assault on the public, because any member of the public could end up where I was. Anybody could be the next victim, because there will be more.'
Despite having his conviction quashed in 2023, he had to wait until February to get his first compensation payment.
Mr Malkinson had been living on benefits and food banks from his release until then.
Under the 2014 Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, payments are only awarded to people who can prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ministry of Justice data showed that only 6.5% of people who had applied for compensation due to a miscarriage of justice between April 2016 and March 2024 were awarded payouts. Of 591 people who applied, 39 were granted compensation.
Figures showed that 35 have since received money, with average amounts totalling £68,000.
In a statement in February, lawyer Toby Wilton welcomed the payment, but said the £1 million cap on compensation payouts should be lifted.
This is currently the maximum amount that can be paid to victims of miscarriages of justice who are wrongly jailed for at least 10 years.
'The Government should lift the current cap on compensation, and end the twisted quirk that whilst awards under other compensation schemes are excluded from assessment for benefits,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Andrew Malkinson vows to continue campaign for reform after 17 years wrongfully jailed
Andrew Malkinson, who was exonerated last year after spending 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit, has said that his fight to reform the legal system is far from over. Mr Malkinson, 59, had his conviction overturned in 2023 after years of maintaining his innocence. He told The Sunday Times that his "life was desolated" by the wrongful conviction, and that he is determined to change the justice system, starting with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). "I haven't finished. I want to change a lot more," he said. "It's a good feeling that something so dreadful and tragic is leading to real change." His comments come as Dame Vera Baird KC is set to become the interim chairwoman of the CCRC. The barrister will take up the post from June 9 until December 8 next year, and is tasked with carrying out an urgent review into the running of the independent body and ensuring that lessons have been learned from previous cases. Mr Malkinson said he remained 'incandescent' at the CCRC, as well as the Government's compensation scheme, which makes it difficult for wrongly-convicted people to receive payouts. 'This is an assault on innocent people,' he said. 'It's an assault on the public, because any member of the public could end up where I was. Anybody could be the next victim, because there will be more.' Despite having his conviction quashed in 2023, he had to wait until February to get his first compensation payment. Mr Malkinson had been living on benefits and food banks from his release until then. Under the 2014 Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, payments are only awarded to people who can prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Ministry of Justice data showed that only 6.5% of people who had applied for compensation due to a miscarriage of justice between April 2016 and March 2024 were awarded payouts. Of 591 people who applied, 39 were granted compensation. Figures showed that 35 have since received money, with average amounts totalling £68,000. In a statement in February, lawyer Toby Wilton welcomed the payment, but said the £1 million cap on compensation payouts should be lifted. This is currently the maximum amount that can be paid to victims of miscarriages of justice who are wrongly jailed for at least 10 years. 'The Government should lift the current cap on compensation, and end the twisted quirk that whilst awards under other compensation schemes are excluded from assessment for benefits,' he said.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Cuts to BBC World Service funding would ‘make us less safe', MPs tell ministers
Hours before Rachel Reeves stood up to deliver her budget last year, government officials were still in tense negotiations with bosses at the BBC over how much the World Service would be given. The amount they were haggling over was relatively small – just £5.5m out of a total budget of £400m. But BBC chiefs warned the government that if the cuts were imposed on them, they would have to close several language stations in parts of the world where the Russians already hold influence. Doing so would be a gift to Moscow, they added. The argument worked, and the BBC got the extra cash it was asking for. But executives at the corporation worry that their appeal to Britain's soft power might not prove so effective this time, especially in light of the government's recent cuts to the aid budget. 'The government is asking the World Service to model cuts that would definitely mean having to close important parts of the service,' said one person familiar with the negotiations. 'The BBC's lobbying worked last time, but this round is proving harder.' The Guardian recently revealed the government had asked the World Service to model two scenarios: one where their funding remains the same in cash terms; and one where it would be cut by 2% each year in cash terms. Each scenario would see the budget fall behind inflation, and could mean it ends up to £70m short of what its bosses believe it needs. Jonathan Munro, the global director of the BBC, said: 'When it comes to international impact and influence, the BBC World Service is the UK's most powerful asset. 'While we currently deliver news in 42 languages to over 400m people every week, at the greatest value for money compared to other international news providers, we are ambitious about going further to provide independent news where there is a vital need.' The service is just one institution promoting Britain's soft power abroad, but it is arguably the most powerful, reaching 450m people a week, according to the broadcaster's own figures. When pollsters asked people from around the world about various British exports and organisations, the BBC came out well ahead of any other, with nearly 80% having heard of it and nearly 50% saying it made them feel more positively about the UK. In comparison, only about 55% had heard of the monarchy, and only 25% said it made them view the UK more favourably. According to the same research, which the BBC commissioned, the organisation is also the most trusted of any global news outlet, ahead of CNN, Al Jazeera and Sky News. Jonathan McClory, the managing partner at Sanctuary Counsel and an expert on soft power, said: 'It's a gratuitous accident of history that we have the BBC World Service. You couldn't recreate it if you were starting from scratch, but it enables us to shape a global information landscape and promote British values, such as a free press, transparency and broad support for human rights.' Ministers say they understand this. Jenny Chapman, the international development minister, told the Guardian: 'The World Service do tremendous work, work that nobody else can do … They are soft power, an absolute gold standard resource. We respect that.' But supporters of the organisation fear that budgetary pressure has left its influence on the wane. In 2014, the coalition government stopped funding the world service, leaving the BBC to pay for it purely out of the licence fee. Two years later the government restored some direct funding, which was ringfenced for certain language services, but at a much lower level. Most of the service's £400m budget still comes from licence fee money – a situation the director general, Tim Davie, has warned is not sustainable, especially when domestic operations are being cut. Both scenarios that the government has asked BBC bosses to draw up for the World Service would involve closing certain parts of it. While it will not shut down operations in entire countries, BBC insiders say they are likely to have to close certain foreign language services where there are relatively few people who speak that language. Those services in places close to Russia – which corporation bosses warned last year would be closed if more money was not forthcoming – are once more on the chopping block. The problem with closing operations, even those with relatively small audiences, is that it can give Russia and China a perfect opportunity to push their own propaganda. When the BBC ended its long-wave BBC Arabic radio service in Lebanon, for example, Russian-backed media took over that exact frequency and began broadcasting on it instead. And on the day that thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah all simultaneously exploded in Lebanon, BBC monitors said they picked up what Davie later called 'unchallenged [Russian] propaganda' on that station. The BBC's research has found that its trust level was largely unchanged from four years ago at 78%. Trust in both Russia Today and China Global Television Network had jumped however, from 59% to 71% and from 62% to 70%, respectively. Last week Caroline Dinenage, the Conservative chair of the culture, media and sport select committee, wrote to cabinet ministers warning: 'Without sufficient resources, it could lead to more situations where the world service withdraws or reduces its services and Russian state media fills the vacuum, as in Lebanon. 'Ahead of the spending review, I invite you to reassure us that the government is not seeking to make a 2% cut to its funding of the World Service, at a time when it is vital to our strategic priorities, and that the government will not require cuts that will lead to the BBC having to close one or more language services.' Such arguments have worked with Reeves and her officials in the past. But the chancellor is hemmed in like never before, having already promised major funding increases for defence, the health service and local transport. Dinenage said: 'Ministers have told us that the world service bolsters UK security. Cutting its funding now would undoubtably make us all less safe.' A Foreign Office spokesperson said: 'Despite a tough fiscal situation, we continue to back the World Service, providing a large uplift of £32.6m this year alone, taking our total funding to £137m. 'The work they do as an independent and trusted broadcaster is highly valued by this government, as our continued financial support shows.'
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Justice Jackson warns Supreme Court is sending a 'troubling message'
"It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be "irreparably harmed" by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the "irreparable harm" factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson said the court `plainly botched' its evaluation of a Trump appeal Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. More Supreme Court wins for Trump In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices - Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices - Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.
