this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
64 points (100.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4069 readers
201 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Emily Bolton, Malkinson’s lawyer at the charity Appeal, said: “The documents are a shocking chronicle of how Andy was utterly failed by the body, which should have put an end to his wrongful conviction nightmare, but instead acted as a barrier to justice.

By relying only on the CPS file, the CCRC missed the chance to identify disclosure failures so grave that senior judges have since ruled they would have rendered his conviction unsafe.

Refusing to refer his case for appeal in 2012 and explaining why it would not conduct further DNA testing, the CCRC told Malkinson the cost of forensic investigation was not its “overriding consideration”.

While science has advanced, basic testing that isolates the male chromosome, similar to that commissioned by Appeal in 2019, existed when the CCRC was first considering Malkinson’s case and was widely used from 2003.

Refusing to refer the case for appeal in 2012, the CCRC said there was “no realistic prospect” that further testing would yield a searchable profile “capable of being compared with the national DNA database”.

James Burley, Malkinson’s investigator at Appeal, said: “The CCRC’s internal comments show that in deciding not to commission any DNA testing, cost was at the forefront of their considerations.


I'm a bot and I'm open source!