Will the Malkinson Inquiry Bite?
It was recently announced that one of the leading criminal judges in the country, Sarah Munro KC, will chair the independent Malkinson Inquiry led by the government.
For context, Andrew Malkinson spent 17 years in prison for a rape that he did not commit. He then spent a further three years living under probation supervision before his conviction was ultimately overturned in July this year.
Malkinson’s innocence campaign along with the actions of public authorities like Greater Manchester Police prompted questions that the inquiry will seek to answer. As Munro said:
“I am honoured to be appointed to chair the Andrew Malkinson Inquiry. Mr Malkinson’s wrongful convictions for horrific crimes he did not commit have cost him nearly two decades of freedom – time he has been forced to spend protesting his innocence and fighting for justice – and have had a devastating impact on his life.
“The Inquiry will focus on the police investigation, criminal trial, Mr Malkinson’s appeals and any matters that I consider relevant and important to uncovering how and why this serious miscarriage of justice took place.
“Mr Malkinson deserves the truth, and I am determined that this Inquiry will be fearless and robust in seeking that truth and considering what lessons the justice system must learn.”
But how close will the inquiry really get to the truth?
One of the main criticisms of the government is their failure to place the inquiry on a statutory footing. This is something that Malkinson and his legal representation have called for as it would empower Munro to compel co-operation from the police and other relevant parties.
The government has argued that a statutory inquiry is not necessary at the present time and that a non-statutory inquiry is better because it gives the chair greater flexibility and allows the inquiry to proceed at a faster pace.
That is unfortunately a poor excuse. Malkinson has had to take the police to court on multiple occasions for their failure to hand over evidence and so it is not unreasonable to assume that they will be equally unhelpful with this inquiry. Malkinson himself responded to the news as follows:
“I welcome the appointment of Judge Munro to chair this inquiry. My hope is she and her team will tenaciously pursue the truth, so that I can finally get full answers and accountability. However, I have no confidence that those involved, including the police officers who wrecked my life, will cough up the truth unless forced to do so. At the first sign of any recalcitrance from the police or anyone else, I hope this inquiry will be given the power to compel witnesses and disclosure.”
We have already seen in the Daniel Morgan case that police services are prepared to go to any length to protect their reputation. A statutory inquiry is necessary to ensure that that does not happen. Anything less is to fail Andrew Malkinson after he has spent so many years of his life behind bars.
This week on the podcast we follow the Supreme Court as they return to another historical death during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. We examine the historical scope of the Human Rights Act, the government’s attempts to ignore history and the failings of the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed.
Episode link: http://uklawweekly.com/2023-uksc-36/
Make a difference today,
Marcus