IOPC resumes inquiry into 'one of the worst' miscarriages of justice

Last week, Paul Quinn, 52, was convicted of the 2003 sex attack that Andrew Malkinson was previously convicted for. He spent 17 years behind bars before being exonerated.

Five former Greater Manchester Police (GMP) officers and one currently serving with the force are under investigation IOPC over the case which saw both the chair and chief executive of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) resign from their posts.

A public inquiry is under way after a 2024 review found failings that could have exonerated Mr Malkinson a decade before he was eventually released from prison.

Mr Malkinson told The Sunday Times: “I want fearless investigation and full answers now. These weren’t innocent mistakes. These weren’t just errors. The police chose to ignore evidence of my innocence. They chose to destroy and not disclose evidence. They chose to resist my efforts to clear my name. People should be held accountable for those choices.”

A statement issued by the force said: “The original investigation into the attack, in the summer of 2003, wrongly led us to the arrest and prosecution of the innocent Andrew Malkinson, who served 17 years in prison before clearing his name at the Court of Appeal in 2023.

“We remain deeply sorry to the victim of this heinous attack, and Mr Malkinson, as the victim of a grave miscarriage of justice, for failing to bring the true attacker to justice during our original investigation.

IOPC Director Amanda Rowe said: “The miscarriage of justice that led to Andrew Malkinson being jailed for 17 years – one of the worst we have ever seen in this country – has had a profound impact on the lives of many people.

“That is why our investigation – which is entirely independent of the police – is so important, to understand the role of Greater Manchester Police in what happened.

“A team of highly experienced investigators continues to carefully consider Mr Malkinson’s complaints, relating to the actions of GMP during the investigation and the trial in 2004. This is a hugely complex and time-consuming process, in part because of the passage of time and the large amount of evidence and lines of inquiry to consider, but our work is vital to get Mr Malkinson the answers he deserves and give the public confidence that, when things go wrong like this, there will be scrutiny and lessons will be learned.

“While many lines of inquiry have been paused up to now, to avoid negatively impacting the recently concluded trial, we have worked hard to gather and review what evidence we can, securing around 1,500 evidential documents to support the investigation.

“Now that the criminal trial has concluded, we will consider how any evidence heard during the trial may affect our investigation and resume paused lines of inquiry, including approaching witnesses we believe may be able to assist us. To date, we have informed five former officers that their conduct is under investigation for potential gross misconduct and one serving officer that they are being investigated for possible misconduct. One of the former officers is also under criminal investigation for potential misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice.

“This means there is an indication the officers may have acted in a way that would justify disciplinary or criminal proceedings, but does not necessarily mean such proceedings follow. We will decide whether disciplinary proceedings and referral to the Crown Prosecution Service are required once the investigator’s report has been finalised.

“There are some officers whose conduct we have not yet been able to assess due to the suspension of our investigation, and we will aim to complete this work in the coming weeks. We understand the impact this investigation will have for those involved and we will do everything in our power to conclude matters as soon as possible, while ensuring all of Mr Malkinson’s complaints are thoroughly investigated.”