Police watchdog launches investigation into handling of Malkinson case
The IOPC review highlighted ‘significant issues with GMP’s investigation into the complaints and identified several outstanding lines of inquiry’.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has begun an investigation into the way Greater Manchester Police handled Andrew Malkinson’s case.
Mr Malkinson, who served 17 years in jail for a rape he did not commit, had his 2003 conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal in July, after new DNA evidence potentially linking another man to the crime was identified.
The complaints against Greater Manchester Police (GMP) relate to an allegation that the force failed to keep evidence and then failed to reveal information relating to two witnesses who gave evidence at the trial, the IOPC said.
Reacting to the announcement, Mr Malkinson said he hoped the IOPC would “take the opportunity to root out the corruption plaguing GMP, and to hold individual officers accountable for the tremendous suffering they have caused”.
IOPC director of operations Amanda Rowe said the watchdog would ensure there is “thorough scrutiny of the actions of police involved”.
The IOPC review highlighted “significant issues with GMP’s investigation into the complaints and identified several outstanding lines of inquiry”.
The watchdog first received a referral from GMP in November 2020 about the loss of clothing that had been stored as evidence in the case.
A further referral was made in February 2022 following a complaint that GMP had failed to disclose the criminal histories of two key prosecution witnesses at Mr Malkinson’s trial.
Now, the IOPC has ruled the complaints “were not dealt with in a reasonable and proportionate matter” by GMP, and will carry out further investigation itself.
IOPC director of operations Amanda Rowe said: “My thoughts are with Mr Malkinson, who has suffered greatly as a result of one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history.
“Given our concerns over GMP’s handling of the complaints – and the significant public interest in a case that led to a man spending 17 years in jail for a crime he didn’t commit – our involvement will ensure there is thorough scrutiny of the actions of police involved.
“Our investigation, which will be carried out independently of the police, will focus on the specific allegations raised in Mr Malkinson’s complaints. We are not reviewing the original criminal investigation, nor do we have the power to do so.
“We are in contact with the Government about its broader inquiry into the wrongful conviction. We will continue to work with the chair and inquiry team so that our work and theirs is aligned to ensure that the actions of GMP are fully examined.”
Last month, the Justice Secretary Alex Chalk ordered an independent public inquiry into the circumstances and handling of Andrew Malkinson’s case.
Case files obtained by 57-year-old Mr Malkinson as he battled to be freed show that police and prosecutors knew forensic testing in 2007 had identified a searchable male DNA profile on the rape victim’s vest top that did not match his own.
No match was found on the police database at the time and no further action was taken.
Mr Malkinson wrote to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in 2009 for a review of his case, but at the conclusion of its review in 2012, the commission refused to order further forensic testing or refer the case for appeal.
CCRC documents relating to the case between 2009 and 2012 suggest there were concerns about costs.
Reacting to the IOPC’s announcement, Mr Malkinson said: “I am pleased that the IOPC has announced an independent investigation into GMP’s handling of my case and the GMP officers who caused my wrongful imprisonment for 17 years.
“I never trusted GMP to conduct an effective investigation into my complaints of police misconduct and corruption – because the police complaints system allows them to mark their own homework.
“This IOPC investigation should be led by a member of the IOPC who is not a former police officer, otherwise I fear it will be more of the same.
“I hope the IOPC takes this opportunity to root out the corruption plaguing GMP, and to hold individual officers accountable for the tremendous suffering they have caused me.
“Nobody else should have to go through what I have been through.”
Emily Bolton, Mr Malkinson’s criminal defence solicitor at charity and law practice Appeal, said: “The officers involved in Andy’s case believed they could act with impunity, and their conduct has gone unscrutinised for nearly 20 years.
“The problems in this case started on the very first day of the police investigation. Andy should never have been a suspect, but GMP officers were determined to pursue him.
“GMP’s investigation into Andy’s complaints was evasive and flawed, they failed to follow reasonable lines of enquiry and reached untenable conclusions on the evidence. No officers were disciplined for their conduct.
“I hope that any whistle-blowers with knowledge of GMP’s handling of Andy’s case will come forward.
“The IOPC must now swiftly gather all evidence from the GMP investigation and shine a light on their mishandling of this case, so that we can reduce the chances of this ever happening again.”