%20(10).jpeg)
An innocent guy who spent 17 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit said he is "sickened" that he might have to use any compensation he receives to cover the expense of his prison lodging and food.conti nue reading
After being found guilty of raping a woman in Greater Manchester in 2003, Andrew Malkinson, 57, was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum of seven years the following year. He was given a further 10 years since he insisted on his innocence; he claimed that this period had a "extremely heavy toll" on his mental health and that he "contemplated suicide many times" throughout it.
Senior justices at the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction on Wednesday when it was discovered that DNA evidence connected another man to the crime. He has, however, called the Greater Manchester Police's apologies for his erroneous conviction "meaningless" and criticised the criteria that, should he receive compensation, could require him to cover some of the costs of his incarceration.
Yesterday, Mr. Malkinson said that the state had "kidnapped" him and that he was "sickened" by the idea that he would have to pay for this "kidnapping" outside the High Court.
In an interview with The Telegraph, he said: "When I heard about having to pay my tormentors, it really angered me beyond... I nearly couldn't handle the concept. 'That's really sick,' I thought.
"Proven innocents must foot the bill for their torment? What in the world? Are you kidding me?
According to the present guidelines, Mr. Malkinson might be required to forfeit a percentage of whatever compensation payout he receives in order to cover expenses he would have incurred even if he hadn't been sentenced to prison, like food and lodging. The amount of the award, including any living expense deductions, would be determined by an independent assessor.
The House of Lords approved the guidelines in 2007, but the Supreme Court eventually took over as the UK's top court in 2009.
Bob Neill, a Conservative lawmaker and the head of the justice committee in the UK parliament, is urging the government to examine the regulations.
"You can make a case about protecting taxpayer money, I understand that," Sir Bob replied. The other side of the coin, though, is that this person was unfairly convicted and, as it turns out, imprisoned because of the state's actions. Should they then truly be having a deduction taken from that?
Deductions from compensation were occasionally made when there had been "substantial savings" on living expenses while a person was in detention, a Ministry of Justice official told The Telegraph.
Mr. Malkinson has received an apology from Greater Manchester Police.
"We are truly sorry to Mr. Malkinson that he is the victim of such a grave miscarriage of justice in being convicted of a crime he did not commit and serving a 17-year custodial sentence," said Assistant Chief Constable Sarah Jackson.
"While we hope that this result will offer him a sense of justice that has been long overdue, we understand that it does not make up for the years he has lost. I've volunteered to see him in person so I can give him my apology.
The Greater Manchester Police apologies, according to Mr. Malkinson, "is meaningless to me, absolutely meaningless," the BBC's Newsnight programme reported. What is an apology without an explanation? Nothing, nothing, and nothing at all.
He said on Thursday that he felt like he had been "kidnapped by the state" on BBC Radio 4's Today show.
"It's cost my person, mind, psychology, being, and soul a very hefty toll. I'm at a loss for words as to how I even made it through. I was in complete shock for the first few years, if not longer. I often considered ending my life.
"Since I was arrested in 2003, the police, the prison system, and Probation Service have been calling me a liar because I denied that I committed the crime," Mr. Malkinson said to reporters as he stood outside the Royal Courts of Justice after the decision. Because I refused to submit a fake confession, they made me serve an additional 10 years in prison under the pretext that I was "in denial."
"I do not lie. I'll tell you who is — Greater Manchester Police are liars who are in denial — because I'm not. Even after this ruling today, I believe they will continue to blame others for what happened. They will be seen giving justifications that are implausible.
For twenty years, Greater Manchester Police (GMP) have been attempting to hide the fact that they prosecuted me improperly.
I'm very sorry that man attacked and brutalised you that night, he murmured, turning to the victim of the crime he didn't do. Although I did not attack you, you are not to blame for what occurred to me.
Tricia Hose, the mother of Mr. Malkinson, who is in her mid-seventies, stated: "Now that Andy's name has been vindicated, suddenly in the public eye, I am no longer a misguided mother. My son is not a monster anymore.
However, he cannot undo what has been done to him. The harm will follow him for the rest of his life, and the victim of the incident was also denied justice.