Advertisement
After serving almost 20 years in prison for a rape he didn’t commit, a man who was imprisoned for 17 years says his $1 million settlement is “not enough.”
After new DNA evidence connecting a different probable suspect to the killing surfaced last month, Andrew Malkinson’s conviction was overturned.
The 57-year-old was, however, “sickened” by the thought of having to deduct “board and lodging” expenses from any damages he receives under the government’s miscarriage of justice program, which itself has a £1 million settlement ceiling.
Following Mr. Malkinson’s case, Justice Secretary Alex Chalk KC immediately revoked the order on Sunday.
Mr. Malkinson said in a statement to Sky’s crime reporter Martin Brunt: “I think it [the regulation] is terrible.
It is truly very foolish and vindictive. It is absolutely essential.
The 57-year-old also criticized the settlement he is likely to receive, which is limited to £1 million for those who have served ten years or more as victims of a miscarriage of justice, noting that he has already spent nearly twice that amount of time in prison.
‘It’s very lamentable,’ Mr. Malkinson added. Although £1 million may seem like a lot of money, it actually represents over two decades of misery, missed chances, broken hearts, and other things that make life valuable.
The maximum sentence is ten years, but what happens to those like me who have served almost twice as long? It seems quite unjust.
“I don’t think any amount would be enough, but it ought to be a lot higher than it is,” the speaker said.
He acknowledged that it might take years for him to get the money, which would allow him to live out the remainder of his days “in relative comfort.” It’s the least they can do for me, he insisted. It will never be able to make up for the happiness and joy I’ve lost.
The “unjust rule,” which may have required him to return tens of thousands of pounds of his compensation as “rent” for his home, was another point of emphasis for Mr. Malkinson.
Later, it was revealed by Downing Street that Rishi Sunak thought the deductions were unfair, and yesterday Justice Secretary Alex Chalk KC made the decision to immediately end the program. He said: “This common sense change will ensure victims do not face paying twice for crimes they did not commit.”
The former security guard applauded the decision but noted that it was only the first of many reforms that our legal system would require to better protect the defenseless.After being convicted responsible for the attack on a woman in Salford, Greater Manchester, in 2003, Mr. Malkinson of Grimsby, Lincolnshire, was sentenced to at least seven years in jail at Manchester Crown Court a year later.
After he insisted on his innocence, he was imprisoned for an additional ten years.
He consistently maintained his innocence despite the absence of any DNA evidence implicating him in the crime. Following the discovery of another man’s DNA on clothing remnants belonging to the victim, his case was sent to the Court of Appeal in January.
Sir Bob Neill, the head of the Commons justice committee and a Tory MP, expressed his “delight” that Mr. Chalk had “moved so swiftly” to end the program in the wake of Mr. Malkinson’s release.
However, he advocated that officials take a step further and retroactively refund victims of miscarriages of justice whose compensation has already been reduced. I wonder if ex-gratia payments could be taken into consideration by the government on a case-by-case basis. the MP
The head of the nonprofit Appeal and Mr. Malkinson’s attorney, Emily Bolton, urged the government to take greater action.
“The state robbed Andy of the best years of his life,” she alleged. The solution is not to change this one rule. The appeals process need a total makeover.
People must submit an application for compensation within two years of receiving a pardon or having their convictions overturned in order to be eligible.
Advertisement
