Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on July 27, 2023, 10:55:05 am
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-66323436
Horrific story. An entirely innocent man who has served 17 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit. Its been known for years that the DNA samples relevant to the case weren't his, but his appeals failed time and again.
It's worth listening to his speech at the Court of Appeal yesterday after his conviction was finally quashed. Harrowing. A decent man's life totally destroyed.
How can we get something like this so badly wrong in this day and age?
-
How the f**k can DNA evidence be ignored for so long?
It is beyond disgrace. That poor man.
-
It also begs the question whether parole should be denied purely because the prisoner has never admitted to doing what he was convicted of, as in this case.
-
How the f**k can DNA evidence be ignored for so long?
It is beyond disgrace. That poor man.
When was the DNA evidence first presented to the Court Of Appeal? I've read the reports but haven't seen it said anywhere what the timeline is of when that happened.
-
There's been far too many case where the police have shut the investigation down too soon and gone for the easy option, resulting in far too many innocent people being locked up.
I know the police would site resources and other financial issues impeding them from a rigorous investigation but it happens too often, the question needs to be asked,
Are they fit for service?
Dark times.
-
How the f**k can DNA evidence be ignored for so long?
It is beyond disgrace. That poor man.
When was the DNA evidence first presented to the Court Of Appeal? I've read the reports but haven't seen it said anywhere what the timeline is of when that happened.
According to R4 PM programme last night, the DNA evidence had been held since the original rape but hadn't been used to demonstrate that it wasn't Malkinson's. Which seems ridiculous.
The conviction was based on two witnesses who identified Malkinson. One was a heroin addict and petty criminal who had a set of charges against him dropped after he identified Malkinson. The other was the victim herself - Malkinson's team claim that the police pressurised her at an ID parade.
This photo shows Malkinson after his arrest and the photofit they got from the victim. Howin the name of God could anyone look at the whole evidence sobrerly, and think they'd got the right man?
(https://i2-prod.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article8074422.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200b/0_andrew-malkinson-conviction.jpg)
-
There's been far too many case where the police have shut the investigation down too soon and gone for the easy option, resulting in far too many innocent people being locked up.
I know the police would site resources and other financial issues impeding them from a rigorous investigation but it happens too often, the question needs to be asked,
Are they fit for service?
Dark times.
Are you of the opinion that the decimation of police numbers, particularly the most experienced officers has no bearing on this kind of injustice?
-
There's been far too many case where the police have shut the investigation down too soon and gone for the easy option, resulting in far too many innocent people being locked up.
I know the police would site resources and other financial issues impeding them from a rigorous investigation but it happens too often, the question needs to be asked,
Are they fit for service?
Dark times.
Are you of the opinion that the decimation of police numbers, particularly the most experienced officers has no bearing on this kind of injustice?
I'm of the opinion that the "experienced officers " you talk about we're the ones responsible for this injustice so no, decimation of police numbers is basically old lags taking early retirement and not the core reason, a fundamental mind change needs to be introduced before we collapse into anarchy. The path they are on is not the way.
We have more than enough police to carry out the role, they are hampered and restricted by all the hoops they have to jump through with the implied bureaucracy that many out of touch governments have imposed on them.
They are now glorified pen pushers with triplicate forms to process before any policing gets delivered.
-
How the f**k can DNA evidence be ignored for so long?
It is beyond disgrace. That poor man.
When was the DNA evidence first presented to the Court Of Appeal? I've read the reports but haven't seen it said anywhere what the timeline is of when that happened.
According to R4 PM programme last night, the DNA evidence had been held since the original rape but hadn't been used to demonstrate that it wasn't Malkinson's. Which seems ridiculous.
The conviction was based on two witnesses who identified Malkinson. One was a heroin addict and petty criminal who had a set of charges against him dropped after he identified Malkinson. The other was the victim herself - Malkinson's team claim that the police pressurised her at an ID parade.
This photo shows Malkinson after his arrest and the photofit they got from the victim. Howin the name of God could anyone look at the whole evidence sobrerly, and think they'd got the right man?
(https://i2-prod.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article8074422.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200b/0_andrew-malkinson-conviction.jpg)
What's the betting that the "experienced police officers" who facilitated this injustice were allowed to take early retirement, pocket their cash and get the hell out of dodge before "questions" were asked.
How often does this happen?
-
There's been far too many case where the police have shut the investigation down too soon and gone for the easy option, resulting in far too many innocent people being locked up.
I know the police would site resources and other financial issues impeding them from a rigorous investigation but it happens too often, the question needs to be asked,
Are they fit for service?
Dark times.
Are you of the opinion that the decimation of police numbers, particularly the most experienced officers has no bearing on this kind of injustice?
I'm of the opinion that the "experienced officers " you talk about we're the ones responsible for this injustice so no, decimation of police numbers is basically old lags taking early retirement and not the core reason, a fundamental mind change needs to be introduced before we collapse into anarchy. The path they are on is not the way.
We have more than enough police to carry out the role, they are hampered and restricted by all the hoops they have to jump through with the implied bureaucracy that many out of touch governments have imposed on them.
They are now glorified pen pushers with triplicate forms to process before any policing gets delivered.
I was always under the impression it was the dogs that jumped through hoops,then ran through tunnels.
Also what has the retiring of old lags(criminals!!) got to do with this?
-
This is all very interesting but it isn't the police who decides who to prosecute, when it happens or if the evidence is strong enough.
-
This is all very interesting but it isn't the police who decides who to prosecute, when it happens or if the evidence is strong enough.
Everyone's aware its not the police who prosecute, but when the investigation is half hearted and looking for corners to cut then what can the CPS do when they are given substandard material to work with because a constabulary wanted to tidy up its detection rates.
This happens far too often to be coincidental.
-
This is all very interesting but it isn't the police who decides who to prosecute, when it happens or if the evidence is strong enough.
Everyone's aware its not the police who prosecute, but when the investigation is half hearted and looking for corners to cut then what can the CPS do when they are given substandard material to work with because a constabulary wanted to tidy up its detection rates.
This happens far too often to be coincidental.
If the evidence isn't enough to make a prosecution worthwhile they won't spend money on one. Even the police know that, unless you're alleging the police fabricated evidence?
-
This is all very interesting but it isn't the police who decides who to prosecute, when it happens or if the evidence is strong enough.
Everyone's aware its not the police who prosecute, but when the investigation is half hearted and looking for corners to cut then what can the CPS do when they are given substandard material to work with because a constabulary wanted to tidy up its detection rates.
This happens far too often to be coincidental.
If the evidence isn't enough to make a prosecution worthwhile they won't spend money on one. Even the police know that, unless you're alleging the police fabricated evidence?
If you trust the police, you’re an absolute fool
-
There was a time when I wouldn’t have hesitated to go to a police officers aid if the situation ‘called’ for it……not now.
It may be an old cliche but, I’ve never met a good un, either serving or retired.
-
Well I worked for a couple of years at Donny Police Station doing mental health assessments for people they arrested and who they thought had a problem.
Most of them were great blokes, who genuinely cared for people.
Some of them were Rovers fans too.
There was one Custody Sergeant who was a complete tw#t but on the whole they were OK.
-
This is all very interesting but it isn't the police who decides who to prosecute, when it happens or if the evidence is strong enough.
Everyone's aware its not the police who prosecute, but when the investigation is half hearted and looking for corners to cut then what can the CPS do when they are given substandard material to work with because a constabulary wanted to tidy up its detection rates.
This happens far too often to be coincidental.
If the evidence isn't enough to make a prosecution worthwhile they won't spend money on one. Even the police know that, unless you're alleging the police fabricated evidence?
If you trust the police, you’re an absolute fool
And if you think that I think that, you're the absolute fool.
-
There's been far too many case where the police have shut the investigation down too soon and gone for the easy option, resulting in far too many innocent people being locked up.
I know the police would site resources and other financial issues impeding them from a rigorous investigation but it happens too often, the question needs to be asked,
Are they fit for service?
Dark times.
The Police have to submit a file of evidence to the CPS for a lawyer to determine if there is sufficient evidence to charge, once there is the Defendant is charged and the Case file is in the hands of the CPS. You really need to stick to making comments about stuff you understand, which from what I have seen is not a lot!
-
So going along with your statement you would then agree that on many occasions in the past the police have submitted case files that have been considered sufficient evidence to prosecute by a CPS lawyer.
This case is taken to court and the defendant is found guilty of said case and locked up.
When further down the line the case has been proven to have been a gross miscarriage of justice who do you think the majority will blame for the miscarriage?
I'll give you a clue as you seem to be struggling with the concept,
It ain't the lawyer's or barristers.
As for your personal opinion, classy.
-
So going along with your statement you would then agree that on many occasions in the past the police have submitted case files that have been considered sufficient evidence to prosecute by a CPS lawyer.
This case is taken to court and the defendant is found guilty of said case and locked up.
When further down the line the case has been proven to have been a gross miscarriage of justice who do you think the majority will blame for the miscarriage?
I'll give you a clue as you seem to be struggling with the concept,
It ain't the lawyer's or barristers.
As for your personal opinion, classy.
Please bear in mind this case is 18 years old, not 18 months!
-
There's been far too many case where the police have shut the investigation down too soon and gone for the easy option, resulting in far too many innocent people being locked up.
I know the police would site resources and other financial issues impeding them from a rigorous investigation but it happens too often, the question needs to be asked,
Are they fit for service?
Dark times.
The Police have to submit a file of evidence to the CPS for a lawyer to determine if there is sufficient evidence to charge, once there is the Defendant is charged and the Case file is in the hands of the CPS. You really need to stick to making comments about stuff you understand, which from what I have seen is not a lot!
So going along with your statement you would then agree that on many occasions in the past the police have submitted case files that have been considered sufficient evidence to prosecute by a CPS lawyer.
This case is taken to court and the defendant is found guilty of said case and locked up.
When further down the line the case has been proven to have been a gross miscarriage of justice who do you think the majority will blame for the miscarriage?
I'll give you a clue as you seem to be struggling with the concept,
It ain't the lawyer's or barristers.
As for your personal opinion, classy.
Please bear in mind this case is 18 years old, not 18 months!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/07/police-withheld-evidence-making-rape-conviction-unsafe-says-uk-court-of-appeal-andrew-malkinson
"You really need to stick to making comments about stuff you understand, which from what I have seen is not a lot!"
-
There's been far too many case where the police have shut the investigation down too soon and gone for the easy option, resulting in far too many innocent people being locked up.
I know the police would site resources and other financial issues impeding them from a rigorous investigation but it happens too often, the question needs to be asked,
Are they fit for service?
Dark times.
The Police have to submit a file of evidence to the CPS for a lawyer to determine if there is sufficient evidence to charge, once there is the Defendant is charged and the Case file is in the hands of the CPS. You really need to stick to making comments about stuff you understand, which from what I have seen is not a lot!
So going along with your statement you would then agree that on many occasions in the past the police have submitted case files that have been considered sufficient evidence to prosecute by a CPS lawyer.
This case is taken to court and the defendant is found guilty of said case and locked up.
When further down the line the case has been proven to have been a gross miscarriage of justice who do you think the majority will blame for the miscarriage?
I'll give you a clue as you seem to be struggling with the concept,
It ain't the lawyer's or barristers.
As for your personal opinion, classy.
Please bear in mind this case is 18 years old, not 18 months!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/07/police-withheld-evidence-making-rape-conviction-unsafe-says-uk-court-of-appeal-andrew-malkinson
"You really need to stick to making comments about stuff you understand, which from what I have seen is not a lot!"
This case is 18 years old , a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then,you were probably still in nappies judging by your childish. Comments
-
The DNA evidence proving that Malkinson didn't commit the rape was known 3 years after he was convicted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66513959
This is beyond words.
-
The CPS appear to be arguing that because there was no identified link to another suspect on the database from the DNA sample taken from the clothing of the victim, that no further action was required.
"In addition, searches of the DNA databases were conducted to identify any other possible suspects. At that time there were no matches and therefore no further investigation could be carried out."
This misses the point by a country mile.
They had evidence of another person being implicated, though he could not be located in available records.
That is in addition to no DNA from Malkinson present.
Putting those two facts together raises significant doubt at least about the conviction. They therefore needed to consider further the reliability of the original conviction.
The CPS from 2007 has serious questions to answer about how the case was handled, from that time up to the present delayed release.
-
What's even worse of a thought is who else has this happened to.
The people of the police, CPS etc who did their job so badly and lazily that an innocent mamn went to jail for 18 years should be in court now but we all know that won't happen
-
That reads as though they had real doubts it was him but no clue who had done it, so better someone locked up than noone.
What must he have gone through, and now the victims family after spending years having ' comfort' that justice was done to have it raked back up again and know all their feelings were misdirected.
-
What's even worse of a thought is who else has this happened to.
The people of the police, CPS etc who did their job so badly and lazily that an innocent mamn went to jail for 18 years should be in court now but we all know that won't happen
What's even worse than this is that we have an apologist on here that will swear blind that you are wrong to think this, because they think they know better, and remember,
"This case is 18 years old, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then"
So that makes it all ok ?
Unbelievable.
-
What's even worse of a thought is who else has this happened to.
The people of the police, CPS etc who did their job so badly and lazily that an innocent mamn went to jail for 18 years should be in court now but we all know that won't happen
What's even worse than this is that we have an apologist on here that will swear blind that you are wrong to think this, because they think they know better, and remember,
"This case is 18 years old, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then"
So that makes it all ok ?
Unbelievable.
I will treat that remark with the contempt it deserves, if you think you can make a difference I suggest you join the Police and save us all from Tyranny of the past!
-
What is or was your job?
-
So sadly this topic was about an innocent man being treated badly for something he didn't do, yet on the flip side if you're Mason Greenwood who was found guilty of NOTHING, in fact it's not even not guilty as there wasn't even a trial, then you still get trial by feminazis and told you must quit your job. What a wonderful world we live in
-
So sadly this topic was about an innocent man being treated badly for something he didn't do, yet on the flip side if you're Mason Greenwood who was found guilty of NOTHING, in fact it's not even not guilty as there wasn't even a trial, then you still get trial by feminazis and told you must quit your job. What a wonderful world we live in
I'm not a feminazi, I just don't like the idea of a domestic abuser being able to continue his incredibly privileged career and lifestyle without any sort of punishment. We've all heard the recording and seen the pictures - he's guilty as sin. The whole thing stinks - if he still wants to play football he should go abroad.
-
He's guilty of lots of things, just not in court. Take football out of it He's a public face of worldwide brand , and that brand has to decide how it wants to be seen in a world to audience that hopefully on Sunday will have a world cup in it's locker
-
So sadly this topic was about an innocent man being treated badly for something he didn't do, yet on the flip side if you're Mason Greenwood who was found guilty of NOTHING, in fact it's not even not guilty as there wasn't even a trial, then you still get trial by feminazis and told you must quit your job. What a wonderful world we live in
I'm not a feminazi, I just don't like the idea of a domestic abuser being able to continue his incredibly privileged career and lifestyle without any sort of punishment. We've all heard the recording and seen the pictures - he's guilty as sin. The whole thing stinks - if he still wants to play football he should go abroad.
You sound just like Greater Manchester's boys in blue 18 years ago :thumbsup: he's a wrong he dun it we got no evidence but who cares
-
So sadly this topic was about an innocent man being treated badly for something he didn't do, yet on the flip side if you're Mason Greenwood who was found guilty of NOTHING, in fact it's not even not guilty as there wasn't even a trial, then you still get trial by feminazis and told you must quit your job. What a wonderful world we live in
I'm not a feminazi, I just don't like the idea of a domestic abuser being able to continue his incredibly privileged career and lifestyle without any sort of punishment. We've all heard the recording and seen the pictures - he's guilty as sin. The whole thing stinks - if he still wants to play football he should go abroad.
You sound just like Greater Manchester's boys in blue 18 years ago :thumbsup: he's a wrong he dun it we got no evidence but who cares
No evidence?
-
So sadly this topic was about an innocent man being treated badly for something he didn't do, yet on the flip side if you're Mason Greenwood who was found guilty of NOTHING, in fact it's not even not guilty as there wasn't even a trial, then you still get trial by feminazis and told you must quit your job. What a wonderful world we live in
I'm not a feminazi, I just don't like the idea of a domestic abuser being able to continue his incredibly privileged career and lifestyle without any sort of punishment. We've all heard the recording and seen the pictures - he's guilty as sin. The whole thing stinks - if he still wants to play football he should go abroad.
You sound just like Greater Manchester's boys in blue 18 years ago :thumbsup: he's a wrong he dun it we got no evidence but who cares
No evidence?
Yep no evidence, the evidence was withdrawn or something like that, but to quote the song
We know what you are
we know what you are
Mason Greenwood
We know what you are
-
So sadly this topic was about an innocent man being treated badly for something he didn't do, yet on the flip side if you're Mason Greenwood who was found guilty of NOTHING, in fact it's not even not guilty as there wasn't even a trial, then you still get trial by feminazis and told you must quit your job. What a wonderful world we live in
When you're in the public eye rightly or wrongly morals matter as well as laws. Would you want him playing for Rovers? He'd be better off moving overseas I think.
The Malkinson story is really bad, no person should suffer what he's had to go through.
-
No comparison between the Malkinson case and Mason Greenwood.
Malkinson was known to be an unsafe conviction from 2007, but inertia from those responsible left him rotting in jail because they simply couldn't be arsed to do their job.
Video explainer of the timelines here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fgEJLkzonw
There needs to be a public inquiry into how those involved failed to help this man get justice.
-
I wondered how long it would be before you brought Starmer into this one Albie. You haven't disappointed.
EDIT:
I've just sat through most of that video. You, man, are a disgrace. You should truly be ashamed at yourself. You've hijacked a thread about an appalling miscarriage of justice to post a video of a man ranting with no purpose but to throw shit at someone who you dislike politically.
-
I wondered how long it would be before you brought Starmer into this one Albie. You haven't disappointed.
EDIT:
I've just sat through most of that video. You, man, are a disgrace. You should truly be ashamed at yourself. You've hijacked a thread about an appalling miscarriage of justice to post a video of a man ranting with no purpose but to throw shit at someone who you dislike politically.
I might be wrong, but isn’t that what you do whenever Boris Johnson’s name is mentioned on a thread. If I’m wrong I apologise, am I?
-
BST,
The role of the CPS and Greater Manchester Police, in failing to review the Malkinson case, is central to the miscarriage of justice here.
Starmer was in charge of the CPS from July 2008 to 2013. During that period, the chance to revisit the case in the light of the DNA evidence was missed.
Starmer as head of the service is responsible for that failure of the service, so it is important he be held to account.
Likewise Ken MacDonald who preceded him, and Alison Saunders who followed.
If you don't like the video, essentially the same point is made by Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph;
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/17/why-isnt-keir-starmer-leading-charge-miscarriage-of-justice/
The actions of the public bodies in failing to re-assess the Malkinson conviction amount to culpaple professional negligence.
You must surely agree that a judicial Public Inquiry is required at the very least.
The findings of a judge led inquiry would give Malkinson a chance to seek redress.
The idea that Starmer should not face scrutiny over the role of his organisation is just barking mad!
-
I have been thinking the same thing albie but have been reluctant to post about it because I think bst has been waiting for someone to come along and do that.
It is what he does.
His defender will be along soon.
-
This is a much more accurate timeline, please feel free to detail any part that is incorrect.
''Greater Manchester police failings denied man fair trial, court told''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/26/andrew-malkinson-greater-manchester-police-failings-denied-man-fair-trial-court-told
Unless police numbers were falling way back in 2003 then you would think that senior experienced officers had more than a little input into this case.
in one's own time ............
-
This is a much more accurate timeline, please feel free to detail any part that is incorrect.
''Greater Manchester police failings denied man fair trial, court told''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/26/andrew-malkinson-greater-manchester-police-failings-denied-man-fair-trial-court-told
Unless police numbers were falling way back in 2003 then you would think that senior experienced officers had more than a little input into this case.
in one's own time ............
Having read the Article I am struggling to see the issue re SEWARD, the press were making out he had given evidence to be rewarded with leniency in relation to matters he had been arrested for, in reality he was dealt with in the normal fashion for minor motoring offences and received a sentence which is typical of what High crime causing drug users get metered out in our Woke Court system, 9 points on his licence and a ‘substantial’ fine of £145 which was probably as a result of him being long term unemployed, and already in possession of an unpaid fines account running into a couple of £thousand with the fines and fees department, he will also have told the Court he didn’t have the means to pay his fine and the Bench will have made an order which would require the DWP to deduct £5 a month from his Benefits payments, I will guess he carried on offending regardless and will have eventually possible 6 visits to the magistrates Court later have had the ‘Book’ thrown at him, he will have got a massive 12 week prison sentence, he will have made sure it was around Christmas and had a nice warm 6 week sabbatical to re charge his ‘Batteries’ before being released back into society with little or no supervision, he will then immediately commenced re offending! He is a typical product of Keir Starmers woke tenure in office as Head of CPS!
-
As an add on I would guess his oh so serious drug possession offence would be possession of 8 wraps of Herion! A serious matter for the Police and a statement to the Bench, that he had the Heroin for personal use would have resulted in the case being dropped….anything to make a good story eh?
-
Wouldn't have any spare proof to go with that little story sprot?
''Edward Henry KC, representing Malkinson, said the “original trial resulted in an unsafe conviction because of deplorable disclosure failures which must lie at the door of Greater Manchester police”.
Henry said the “historic injustices” outlined in the case raised “wider implications for the criminal justice system”.
GMP also failed to disclose a photograph that supported the victim’s memory of causing such a “deep scratch” to her attacker’s cheek that she broke a nail. Malkinson was seen by police the next day with no marks on his face and at his trial the judge invited the jury to consider that the victim might have been mistaken in her memory about the scratch.
But it now emerges that the court was not given photographs taken on the night of the attack which showed a nail on her left hand was significantly shorter than the others.
The disclosure failures were only identified 15 years after Malkinson’s conviction, when his case was taken on by the legal charity Appeal''
Fit up and cover up by GMP? which is more likely? you be the judge.
-
Wouldn't have any spare proof to go with that little story sprot?
''Edward Henry KC, representing Malkinson, said the “original trial resulted in an unsafe conviction because of deplorable disclosure failures which must lie at the door of Greater Manchester police”.
Henry said the “historic injustices” outlined in the case raised “wider implications for the criminal justice system”.
GMP also failed to disclose a photograph that supported the victim’s memory of causing such a “deep scratch” to her attacker’s cheek that she broke a nail. Malkinson was seen by police the next day with no marks on his face and at his trial the judge invited the jury to consider that the victim might have been mistaken in her memory about the scratch.
But it now emerges that the court was not given photographs taken on the night of the attack which showed a nail on her left hand was significantly shorter than the others.
The disclosure failures were only identified 15 years after Malkinson’s conviction, when his case was taken on by the legal charity Appeal''
Fit up and cover up by GMP? which is more likely? you be the judge.
Actually a £145 fine for minor motoring offences was quite substantial 18 years ago! He would have got that fine last week at Sheffield or Donny!
Shoplifting is theft and is imprisonable and is what you might call a real Criminal offence, but the likes of Seward would get a £25 fine.
As for the Drug offences they seem to have been dealt with by means of simple Cautions, so the Police have a Tarif chart they have to adhere to when considering a charge to court, clearly these drug offences were matters that would be dealt with by means of a caution, if you can show me some evidence to the contrary I will reconsider!
-
You'd make Hans Christian Andersen blush with your little tales of fantasy, which if any of it made sense at all it begs the question as to why did the GMP not disclose all the facts when asked to do so, why was the victims clothing destroyed against an order not to do so? why didn't they do their f**king job?
-
Welcome back, Syd.
Your Guardian link accurately sets out the role of Greater Manchester Police, but it does not address the timelines for a review of the unsafe conviction.
That review would have been under the responsibility of the CPS, once the new DNA evidence came into play.
The police have serious questions to answer in relation to the original trial, as the lawyer for Malkinson points out.
But that does not deal with the failure of the CPS to instigate a review on the basis of the known DNA evidence from 2007 onwards.
So both elements need to be considered, in order to find the weaknesses in the system that allowed a miscarriage of justice to persist.
As I said, only a judicial public inquiry with the breadth to investigate all aspects would have the powers to get to the bottom of the failings.
-
Albie you are getting confused about the order of things and how crimes are prevented, detected and solved it's quite a simple process really.
If the GMP did their jobs especially this one without fear or favour Malkinson would not have been charged, the rest is afterthought.
-
Syd,
Rest easy, I am not confused at all!
We are talking about a miscarriage of justice.
You are right that it certainly should not have happened, but it did.
Once an event like this has occured, the system needs to have procedures in place to revisit the unsafe conviction.
That is the role of the CPS, to correct clear errors in the event that new evidence comes forward.
The original trial reached an incorrect conclusion, yet the known evidence from 2007 was not acted upon.
That is a serious failure which has to be explained.
This might be the fault of individual case officers, or the way information is reviewed, or the internal mechanisms not converging within the relevant department.
It is for this reason that a full judicial inquiry is required.
Hopefully it would have the ability to recommend systemic changes to prevent another Malkinson occurence, and give Malkinson the evidence he would need to right the wrongs he has suffered.
-
Albie you are getting confused about the order of things and how crimes are prevented, detected and solved it's quite a simple process really.
If the GMP did their jobs especially this one without fear or favour Malkinson would not have been charged, the rest is afterthought.
Here you go Sydders read the Judges judgement of the Appeal, no allegations of Police corruption just as I said before this happened in 2003, the DNA science which proved Malkinsons ultimate innocence did not exist back the, plus the fact that Seward had been convicted of a Shoplifting offence in 1994 didn’t need to be disclosed,, also he got 2 cautions for possession of Amphet and heroin, wow, then crawl back into your skip and mind your own Aussie business!
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Malkinson-v-the-King-070823-judgment2.pdf
-
Albie
That's the Fraser Nelson who, two weeks ago was telling us that Global Warming was good because the cold kills more people than heat.
He's gone full on far-right head banging batshit. Are you REALLY going to cite him in your Starmer obsession?
-
Albie you are getting confused about the order of things and how crimes are prevented, detected and solved it's quite a simple process really.
If the GMP did their jobs especially this one without fear or favour Malkinson would not have been charged, the rest is afterthought.
Here you go Sydders read the Judges judgement of the Appeal, no allegations of Police corruption just as I said before this happened in 2003, the DNA science which proved Malkinsons ultimate innocence did not exist back the, plus the fact that Seward had been convicted of a Shoplifting offence in 1994 didn’t need to be disclosed,, also he got 2 cautions for possession of Amphet and heroin, wow, then crawl back into your skip and mind your own Aussie business!
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Malkinson-v-the-King-070823-judgment2.pdf
When you wrote ''having read the article'' I thought you meant all the big words as well sprot.
Explain to me as I asked previously why the criminal records of the witnesses were not supplied to the defence when full disclosure was requested and also give me you best shot why the victims clothes were destroyed when there was an order that the material evidence should be retained.
-
Here's another article you can avoid reading sprot .............
''Police and CPS had key DNA evidence 16 years before Andrew Malkinson cleared of rape
Exclusive: No action taken despite 2007 discovery of searchable male DNA profile on rape victim’s top that did not match Malkinson’s''
''Police and prosecutors in the Andrew Malkinson case knew there was another man’s DNA on the victim’s clothes in 2007 – three years after he was wrongly convicted of rape – but he remained in prison for another 13 years''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/15/police-and-cps-had-key-dna-evidence-16-years-before-andrew-malkinson-cleared-of-rape
-
Welcome back, Syd. We've all missed you.
Let the fun and games begin.
-
Welcome back, Syd. We've all missed you.
Let the fun and games begin.
Where is that tongue in cheek emoji.
-
Here's another article you can avoid reading sprot .............
''Police and CPS had key DNA evidence 16 years before Andrew Malkinson cleared of rape
Exclusive: No action taken despite 2007 discovery of searchable male DNA profile on rape victim’s top that did not match Malkinson’s''
''Police and prosecutors in the Andrew Malkinson case knew there was another man’s DNA on the victim’s clothes in 2007 – three years after he was wrongly convicted of rape – but he remained in prison for another 13 years''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/15/police-and-cps-had-key-dna-evidence-16-years-before-andrew-malkinson-cleared-of-rape
I thought you said the Police had, purposely destroyed the Victims clothes….
-
Here's another article you can avoid reading sprot .............
''Police and CPS had key DNA evidence 16 years before Andrew Malkinson cleared of rape
Exclusive: No action taken despite 2007 discovery of searchable male DNA profile on rape victim’s top that did not match Malkinson’s''
''Police and prosecutors in the Andrew Malkinson case knew there was another man’s DNA on the victim’s clothes in 2007 – three years after he was wrongly convicted of rape – but he remained in prison for another 13 years''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/15/police-and-cps-had-key-dna-evidence-16-years-before-andrew-malkinson-cleared-of-rape
The CPS is supposed to write to the CCRC at the earliest opportunity about any case in which there is doubt about the safety of the conviction.
An internal log of Malkinson’s first application to the CCRC in 2009, in an attempt to appeal against his conviction, shows the body raised the cost of further testing and argued it would be unlikely to overturn the conviction.
It took three years to reject his application, and did not request the full police file or conduct new forensic tests
How was the GMP responsible for this miscarriage ?
You need to do some reading Sydders, preferably when you are sober!
-
Here's another article you can avoid reading sprot .............
''Police and CPS had key DNA evidence 16 years before Andrew Malkinson cleared of rape
Exclusive: No action taken despite 2007 discovery of searchable male DNA profile on rape victim’s top that did not match Malkinson’s''
''Police and prosecutors in the Andrew Malkinson case knew there was another man’s DNA on the victim’s clothes in 2007 – three years after he was wrongly convicted of rape – but he remained in prison for another 13 years''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/15/police-and-cps-had-key-dna-evidence-16-years-before-andrew-malkinson-cleared-of-rape
I thought you said the Police had, purposely destroyed the Victims clothes….
from the first article you didn't read ............
''The DNA breakthrough in the case was also nearly rendered impossible because of the destruction of key exhibits by GMP.
The victim’s vest top, bra, knickers and other clothing were destroyed by GMP, while a preservation order was still in place. Retesting was only possible because small samples from her clothes were found in a national archive by Malkinson’s representatives at appeal''
-
Welcome back, Syd. We've all missed you.
Let the fun and games begin.
Where is that tongue in cheek emoji.
This off-topic forum has once again got lower in status and quality than its fourth-division football team.
-
Welcome back, Syd. We've all missed you.
Let the fun and games begin.
Where is that tongue in cheek emoji.
This off-topic forum has once again got lower in status and quality than its fourth-division football team.
Amen to that BB.
-
For a such serious subject where the police do not appear to have a legal leg to stand on there are some really childish comments.
-
Graham Taylor and Phil Neal,Blackadder and Baldrick,Tweedle Dee and Dumb, or more appropriately, David Brent(wannabe muso) and Gareth entered the fray.
Sad men.
-
An Englishman, an Australian and an Iberian were out fishing in a boat on a
lake together and doing very well.
This is a terrific spot for fishing,' said the Englishman. 'How will we know where this spot is next time?'
'I've thought of that,' said the Australian, 'We'll just put a mark on the side of the boat.'
'You idiot,' said the Iberian, 'how do you know we will get this boat the next time?'
-
As always,the only one fishing is the Bent Bull.
-
Some silly Aussie Twit keeps posting on here, when will he realise he got the Wrong Rovers Forum?
-
Some silly Aussie Twit keeps posting on here, when will he realise he got the Wrong Rovers Forum?
Certain posters don't like English folk living away,or foreigners.
Would you be one of them?
-
Me I hate the world!
-
The pin has been pulled,the grenade has been lobbed,and plop. It was a dud.
Care to comment about a miscarriage of justice that shows just how poor our system is.
Sad man
-
Do you mean like your posts 62 64 and 66 which are obviously about Mr Malkinson.
Post 62 by the way is quite weird, even by your standards.
-
Stalking again GG. .
Sad man
-
Stalking again GG. .
Sad man
Yes, I had noticed that you were.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with your man is a prime target for you aren’t they.
-
Stalking again GG. .
Sad man
Yes, I had noticed that you were.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with your man is a prime target for you aren’t they.
Your main man?
How old are you?
Don't tell me I already know.
-
Stalking again GG. .
Sad man
Yes, I had noticed that you were.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with your man is a prime target for you aren’t they.
Your main man?
How old are you?
Don't tell me I already know.
Where did I say “main man”.
-
Leaving the playground, and getting back to the serious issue....inquiry announced;
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/chalk-announces-independent-inquiry-into-malkinson-miscarriage/5117043.article
As the article says, it is non statutory.......meaning it cannot compel witnesses to appear under oath.
The powers are not strong enough, because the failings of management in the CPS need to be fully examined.
-
And ............
''Case review chief was in Montenegro during Andrew Malkinson revelations
Exclusive: Helen Pitcher leads the commission that twice failed to refer Malkinson back to the court of appeal''
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/aug/25/case-review-chief-was-in-montenegro-during-andrew-malkinson-revelations
Everyone is entitled to a holiday or even remote working but when you're in a senior position ..........
-
And ............
''Case review chief was in Montenegro during Andrew Malkinson revelations
Exclusive: Helen Pitcher leads the commission that twice failed to refer Malkinson back to the court of appeal''
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/aug/25/case-review-chief-was-in-montenegro-during-andrew-malkinson-revelations
Everyone is entitled to a holiday or even remote working but when you're in a senior position ..........
You are still entitled to your holidays, I am surprised you are challenging something like this, you being a Champion of workers rights, cough cough!
-
sure am sprot, just had five and half weeks in northern Europe :)
-
The Commission takes instruction from the CPS, so it is the CPS who needed to initiate a review.
Both need to explain their role and failure to act.
The worrying thing is that the independent inquiry announced by the government has no power to require evidence from those bodies.
This is crucial, because documents with-held could contain vital information.
Witnesses and evidence must be compelled under oath to assist the inquiry.
-
The whole thing so far .........
''Andy Malkinson's battle for justice: What happens next?''
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66619858
-
The bit highlighting the issues around the "witnesses" is scary
-
Malkinson 17 years, a mere nothing compared to this guy 47years!
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1699210804820590689?t=f1QETSSMJcHyG5d6LFlZnA&s=19
-
It's a tragedy but at least braverman is going to try and sort some of it out and hopefully reduce the chances of a repeat.
''Police chiefs will chair independent public hearings responsible for removing corrupt officers from their force under new plans to strengthen the police dismissals process announced today (Thursday 31 August).
In a move to ensure the public are getting the high level of professionalism and service they deserve from our police, speed up the process of removing rogue officers, and to restore confidence in forces, the government has unveiled a raft of changes to the rules governing officers’ disciplinary, vetting and performance processes.
The law will be changed to ensure all officers must be appropriately vetted during their service and to enable officers who fail a re-vetting test whilst in post to be sacked.
Under the new system, a finding of gross misconduct will automatically result in a police officer’s dismissal, unless exceptional circumstances apply, speeding up the removal of officers not fit to serve.
Chief constables (or other senior officers) will also be given greater responsibilities to decide whether officers should be sacked, increasing their accountability for their forces, and will now chair independent misconduct panels. An independent lawyer will continue to sit on the panel, providing independent advice and helping to maintain rigour, but in a supporting legally qualified person (LQP) position. The outcome will be determined by a majority panel decision, as it is now, and hearings will continue to be held in public to maintain transparency.
Police chiefs will also be given a right to challenge decisions and there will be a presumption for former officers and special constables’ cases to be heard under fast-track procedures chaired by senior officers, cutting bureaucracy and saving taxpayers’ money, while making sure those failing to uphold standards are removed more swiftly.
The reforms follow a comprehensive review of the police disciplinary system launched following the conviction of David Carrick, who is spending 30 years behind bars for numerous serious sexual offences committed whilst he was a serving police officer.
We will also explore with police and crime commissioners (PCCs) and other stakeholders extending rights of challenge to PCCs, to allow democratically elected commissioners to hold those making dismissals decisions to account.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman said:
Corrupt police officers and those who behave poorly or fail vetting must be kicked out of our forces. For too long our police chiefs have not had the powers they need to root out those who have no place wearing the uniform.
Now they can take swift and robust action to sack officers who should not be serving our communities.
The public must have confidence that their officers are the best of the best, like the vast majority of brave men and women wearing the badge, and that’s why those who disgrace the uniform must have no place to hide.
Policing Minister Chris Philp said:
Public trust must be restored – this is an important step to ensure we are ridding forces of rogue officers, for the sake of communities and for those officers who are dedicated, hardworking and brave.
Confidence in our police forces has been rocked recently.
These changes will ensure that police chiefs will have the ability to act fast to remove officers guilty of serious misconduct or who are poorly performing.
Other measures announced today include:
working with the sector to create a list of criminal offences which would automatically amount to gross misconduct upon conviction
streamlining of the performance system to ensure it’s effective at removing officers who demonstrate a serious inability or failure to perform their duties
issuing new guidance to all forces to support the effective discharge of under-performing probationary officers using Regulation 13 powers
improving data collection on performance and dismissals across all forces, including data on protected characteristics; and
speeding up the system by allowing chief constables to delegate their responsibilities to other senior officers
These reforms build on wider work underway to transform the culture within policing and raise standards across the board. Last month, the College of Policing strengthened vetting standards, introducing a requirement for officers to be re-vetted following the conclusion of misconduct proceedings that do not end in a dismissal and making clear that checks must be carried out to identify any officers who have been barred from serving to ensure they cannot re-join the police.
The government also established the Angiolini Inquiry following the murder of Sarah Everard to understand how a serving police officer was able to carry out such a horrendous crime and to uncover any systemic issues in policing, such as vetting, recruitment and culture, as well as the safety of women in public spaces. It is also looking at David Carrick’s criminal behaviour and the decision making around his police vetting.
Furthermore, police forces have now completed the data washing exercise to check all officers and staff against national police databases, and are now manually analysing the information to identify leads for follow up.
National Police Chiefs’ Council Chair, Chief Constable Gavin Stephens said:
We welcome the change that will ensure any officer guilty of gross misconduct is automatically dismissed, and that any officer who fails vetting can be sacked.
It is also right that chief constables take the lead on the misconduct process. We are resolute in our commitment to rid policing of those not fit to serve the public and the changes in the dismissals process announced today significantly strengthens our ability to do so.
Chief constables are the employers and so it is right they should lead the process with support from independent legally qualified panel member/s. Not only will this streamline the process, but it will ensure the swift and effective removal of anyone who does not meet the high standards our communities deserve.
Misconduct proceedings are rightly open, fair and balanced, operating under detailed guidance which protects both our officers and the public we serve. Today’s announcement further supports this and our determination to root out the abusers and corrupt individuals who blight our service.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said:
I’m grateful to the government for recognising the need for substantial change that will empower chief officers in our fight to uphold the highest standards and restore confidence in policing.
The flaws in the existing regulations have contributed to our inability to fully address the systemic issues of poor standards and misconduct.
Chief officers are held to account for the service we deliver and for the standards we uphold which is why I have been persistent in calling for us to have the powers to act decisively and without bureaucratic delays when we identify those who have no place in policing.
In addition to these measures to tackle corrupt police officers, the Home Office is also launching a consultation on a new national framework for how police powers – including stop and search and use of force – are scrutinised at a local level. This delivers on a commitment made by government in its response to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report.
The Community Scrutiny Framework aims to assist PCCs and police forces to establish and maintain effective community scrutiny panels in their local area and ensure a consistent approach nationally.
Community scrutiny panels allow members of the community to review individual police interactions with the public and provide observations and feedback via local police and crime commissioners and the police. This can support police officers to use their powers more confidently with the backing of their communities and aid public understanding of how and why police powers are used.
Today’s announcement is also supported by publication of a review examining public perceptions of policing. The review establishes police visibility, availability, and attendance at incidents as critical to public perceptions of policing, and efforts to improve trust and confidence.
Chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, Donna Jones, said:
Police and crime commissioners are committed to ensuring police officers who commit criminal acts or are proved to have acted in a corrupt way, are not only removed from operational duties as a matter of urgency, but that they are dismissed from police forces as quickly as possible. For this to happen the process to remove police officers must be one that is expedited with minimal barriers that cause delay.
Therefore I welcome the minsters announcement today to speed up the process enabling Chief Constables to sack corrupt police officers quicker.
The Home Secretary has also made clear that strong leadership at all ranks is essential to drive a positive culture and improve standards in policing.
The College of Policing has launched its new professional framework, which sets new consistent national standards for leadership, which will be delivered to all ranks through training by the College’s National Centre for Police Leadership. A new two-year development programme will also enable the most talented serving police inspectors to advance to superintendent more quickly.
Police entry routes will also be streamlined, including a new non-degree entry route which will be rolled out in the Autumn, with successful candidates beginning their training in Spring 2024.
Chief Constable Andy Marsh, CEO at the College of Policing, said:
There is no place in policing for anyone who behaves in a way that damages the public’s trust in us to keep them safe. I welcome today’s announcement which means chiefs officers can swiftly root out those who are damaging policing and falling far short of our commitment to public service.
I was a chief constable in two police forces and I know first-hand the frustration of having to keep officers that I would have otherwise sacked. Last year I began asking for this to change to take place and it means chief officers will be in control of who walks the streets in their uniform.
I know from more than 30 years in policing that the vast majority of officers are dedicated public servants who work hard every day to keep people safe. They do not wish to work alongside officers who commit crimes or impact the trust people have in us. The process will be fair but those who commit serious misconduct can expect to be sacked''
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-make-it-easier-to-sack-rogue-police-officers
If this is all they do before they go, at least it's something.
-
It's a tragedy but at least braverman is going to try and sort some of it out and hopefully reduce the chances of a repeat.
''Police chiefs will chair independent public hearings responsible for removing corrupt officers from their force under new plans to strengthen the police dismissals process announced today (Thursday 31 August).
In a move to ensure the public are getting the high level of professionalism and service they deserve from our police, speed up the process of removing rogue officers, and to restore confidence in forces, the government has unveiled a raft of changes to the rules governing officers’ disciplinary, vetting and performance processes.
The law will be changed to ensure all officers must be appropriately vetted during their service and to enable officers who fail a re-vetting test whilst in post to be sacked.
Under the new system, a finding of gross misconduct will automatically result in a police officer’s dismissal, unless exceptional circumstances apply, speeding up the removal of officers not fit to serve.
Chief constables (or other senior officers) will also be given greater responsibilities to decide whether officers should be sacked, increasing their accountability for their forces, and will now chair independent misconduct panels. An independent lawyer will continue to sit on the panel, providing independent advice and helping to maintain rigour, but in a supporting legally qualified person (LQP) position. The outcome will be determined by a majority panel decision, as it is now, and hearings will continue to be held in public to maintain transparency.
Police chiefs will also be given a right to challenge decisions and there will be a presumption for former officers and special constables’ cases to be heard under fast-track procedures chaired by senior officers, cutting bureaucracy and saving taxpayers’ money, while making sure those failing to uphold standards are removed more swiftly.
The reforms follow a comprehensive review of the police disciplinary system launched following the conviction of David Carrick, who is spending 30 years behind bars for numerous serious sexual offences committed whilst he was a serving police officer.
We will also explore with police and crime commissioners (PCCs) and other stakeholders extending rights of challenge to PCCs, to allow democratically elected commissioners to hold those making dismissals decisions to account.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman said:
Corrupt police officers and those who behave poorly or fail vetting must be kicked out of our forces. For too long our police chiefs have not had the powers they need to root out those who have no place wearing the uniform.
Now they can take swift and robust action to sack officers who should not be serving our communities.
The public must have confidence that their officers are the best of the best, like the vast majority of brave men and women wearing the badge, and that’s why those who disgrace the uniform must have no place to hide.
Policing Minister Chris Philp said:
Public trust must be restored – this is an important step to ensure we are ridding forces of rogue officers, for the sake of communities and for those officers who are dedicated, hardworking and brave.
Confidence in our police forces has been rocked recently.
These changes will ensure that police chiefs will have the ability to act fast to remove officers guilty of serious misconduct or who are poorly performing.
Other measures announced today include:
working with the sector to create a list of criminal offences which would automatically amount to gross misconduct upon conviction
streamlining of the performance system to ensure it’s effective at removing officers who demonstrate a serious inability or failure to perform their duties
issuing new guidance to all forces to support the effective discharge of under-performing probationary officers using Regulation 13 powers
improving data collection on performance and dismissals across all forces, including data on protected characteristics; and
speeding up the system by allowing chief constables to delegate their responsibilities to other senior officers
These reforms build on wider work underway to transform the culture within policing and raise standards across the board. Last month, the College of Policing strengthened vetting standards, introducing a requirement for officers to be re-vetted following the conclusion of misconduct proceedings that do not end in a dismissal and making clear that checks must be carried out to identify any officers who have been barred from serving to ensure they cannot re-join the police.
The government also established the Angiolini Inquiry following the murder of Sarah Everard to understand how a serving police officer was able to carry out such a horrendous crime and to uncover any systemic issues in policing, such as vetting, recruitment and culture, as well as the safety of women in public spaces. It is also looking at David Carrick’s criminal behaviour and the decision making around his police vetting.
Furthermore, police forces have now completed the data washing exercise to check all officers and staff against national police databases, and are now manually analysing the information to identify leads for follow up.
National Police Chiefs’ Council Chair, Chief Constable Gavin Stephens said:
We welcome the change that will ensure any officer guilty of gross misconduct is automatically dismissed, and that any officer who fails vetting can be sacked.
It is also right that chief constables take the lead on the misconduct process. We are resolute in our commitment to rid policing of those not fit to serve the public and the changes in the dismissals process announced today significantly strengthens our ability to do so.
Chief constables are the employers and so it is right they should lead the process with support from independent legally qualified panel member/s. Not only will this streamline the process, but it will ensure the swift and effective removal of anyone who does not meet the high standards our communities deserve.
Misconduct proceedings are rightly open, fair and balanced, operating under detailed guidance which protects both our officers and the public we serve. Today’s announcement further supports this and our determination to root out the abusers and corrupt individuals who blight our service.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said:
I’m grateful to the government for recognising the need for substantial change that will empower chief officers in our fight to uphold the highest standards and restore confidence in policing.
The flaws in the existing regulations have contributed to our inability to fully address the systemic issues of poor standards and misconduct.
Chief officers are held to account for the service we deliver and for the standards we uphold which is why I have been persistent in calling for us to have the powers to act decisively and without bureaucratic delays when we identify those who have no place in policing.
In addition to these measures to tackle corrupt police officers, the Home Office is also launching a consultation on a new national framework for how police powers – including stop and search and use of force – are scrutinised at a local level. This delivers on a commitment made by government in its response to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report.
The Community Scrutiny Framework aims to assist PCCs and police forces to establish and maintain effective community scrutiny panels in their local area and ensure a consistent approach nationally.
Community scrutiny panels allow members of the community to review individual police interactions with the public and provide observations and feedback via local police and crime commissioners and the police. This can support police officers to use their powers more confidently with the backing of their communities and aid public understanding of how and why police powers are used.
Today’s announcement is also supported by publication of a review examining public perceptions of policing. The review establishes police visibility, availability, and attendance at incidents as critical to public perceptions of policing, and efforts to improve trust and confidence.
Chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, Donna Jones, said:
Police and crime commissioners are committed to ensuring police officers who commit criminal acts or are proved to have acted in a corrupt way, are not only removed from operational duties as a matter of urgency, but that they are dismissed from police forces as quickly as possible. For this to happen the process to remove police officers must be one that is expedited with minimal barriers that cause delay.
Therefore I welcome the minsters announcement today to speed up the process enabling Chief Constables to sack corrupt police officers quicker.
The Home Secretary has also made clear that strong leadership at all ranks is essential to drive a positive culture and improve standards in policing.
The College of Policing has launched its new professional framework, which sets new consistent national standards for leadership, which will be delivered to all ranks through training by the College’s National Centre for Police Leadership. A new two-year development programme will also enable the most talented serving police inspectors to advance to superintendent more quickly.
Police entry routes will also be streamlined, including a new non-degree entry route which will be rolled out in the Autumn, with successful candidates beginning their training in Spring 2024.
Chief Constable Andy Marsh, CEO at the College of Policing, said:
There is no place in policing for anyone who behaves in a way that damages the public’s trust in us to keep them safe. I welcome today’s announcement which means chiefs officers can swiftly root out those who are damaging policing and falling far short of our commitment to public service.
I was a chief constable in two police forces and I know first-hand the frustration of having to keep officers that I would have otherwise sacked. Last year I began asking for this to change to take place and it means chief officers will be in control of who walks the streets in their uniform.
I know from more than 30 years in policing that the vast majority of officers are dedicated public servants who work hard every day to keep people safe. They do not wish to work alongside officers who commit crimes or impact the trust people have in us. The process will be fair but those who commit serious misconduct can expect to be sacked''
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-make-it-easier-to-sack-rogue-police-officers
If this is all they do before they go, at least it's something.
that excellent Sydders but what has it got to do with the OP? The Malkinson issue has nothing to do with Police Misconduct.
-
Who said anything about misconduct sprot, the idea with the changes are the the good coppers can get on with their jobs without fear or favour, the last para of the link is what good coppers should want no?
There is an inquiry into the Malikson case and hopefully that should sort out what went seriously wrong.
Read the last para of the link.
-
Who said anything about misconduct sprot, the idea with the changes are the the good coppers can get on with their jobs without fear or favour, the last para of the link is what good coppers should want no?
There is an inquiry into the Malikson case and hopefully that should sort out what went seriously wrong.
Read the last para of the link.
What has this got to do with the OP?
-
There's lots of eindication of police misconduct in the Malkinson case.
The case relied heavily on the word of a smack addict that the police had arrested for theft. He identified Malkinson, and the police dropped charges against him.
Then there is the fact that the victim picked out Malkinson at an ID parade, even though he looked nothing like the photofit image the police had drawn up from her description. Malkinson's legal team are suggesting there was pressure put on her to pick him out.
-
There's lots of eindication of police misconduct in the Malkinson case.
The case relied heavily on the word of a smack addict that the police had arrested for theft. He identified Malkinson, and the police dropped charges against him.
Then there is the fact that the victim picked out Malkinson at an ID parade, even though he looked nothing like the photofit image the police had drawn up from her description. Malkinson's legal team are suggesting there was pressure put on her to pick him out.
I posted the link to the entire transcript of the appeal hearing , having read it, the Male witness had a conviction for Shoplifting in 1994,that was his last Criminal Conviction, prior to 1996 he had a run of convictions for minor acquisitive crime, which is typical of someone funding a Heroin addiction, he was dealt with at Magistrates court Harshly for his Driving document offences, there is no mention from the Judge about Police misconduct, at the trial The defence questioned the witness about his character whilst he was giving evidence! The case focused on the non disclosure of his convictions to the Defence by CPS, but this was not 'misconduct ' the disclosure laws came in sometime fire the case was dealt with 19 years ago.
Read what the judge said and quote from his notes not from Lefty Comics!
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Malkinson-v-the-King-070823-judgment2.pdf
-
Sproty.
I suggest you haven't read the document you posted.
Paragraph 43 for example.
Hand up from me. I was wrong. Seward was under arrest for motoring and drugs offences, not theft, when he suddenly remembered that he'd seen Malkinson on the night in question. He was let off with cautions and small fines which was a very lenient penalty. The police didn't disclose that. The judge said, had the Defence known, they would have had a case that Seward wasn't trustworthy. Remember, the entire prosecution rested on supposed identification of Malkinson. Then there was the other witness who picked out someone else at the ID parade, but then changed her mind afterwards and said she was certain it was Malkinson. I wonder what was said to her by the coppers in the intervening time - I guess we'll never know.
And I couldn't give a damn about the legal status of disclosure. There's a moral requirement for the police to not stitch up an innocent man. And there's plenty of evidence that that is exactly what they did in this case.
-
Sproty.
I suggest you haven't read the document you posted.
Paragraph 43 for example.
Hand up from me. I was wrong. Seward was under arrest for motoring and drugs offences, not theft, when he suddenly remembered that he'd seen Malkinson on the night in question. He was let off with cautions and small fines which was a very lenient penalty. The police didn't disclose that. The judge said, had the Defence known, they would have had a case that Seward wasn't trustworthy. Remember, the entire prosecution rested on supposed identification of Malkinson. Then there was the other witness who picked out someone else at the ID parade, but then changed her mind afterwards and said she was certain it was Malkinson. I wonder what was said to her by the coppers in the intervening time - I guess we'll never know.
And I couldn't give a damn about the legal status of disclosure. There's a moral requirement for the police to not stitch up an innocent man. And there's plenty of evidence that that is exactly what they did in this case.
Show me the evidence.? You don’t get arrested for the offence of Drive Motor vehicle on a Road with no Insurance, unless you tell the officers you name is Mickey Mouse or VLAD Putin, in which case they can arrest you under the Police and Criminal evidence Act . If they arrested Seward he would have been taken to a Custody suite and Finger printed, on Livescan and as he had been fingerprinted on numerous occasions up to 1994, he would have been identified, the Police would then have had to release him from Custody unless they suspected he would fail to attend court or interfere with evidence, highly unlikely , even if they did keep him he would have merely been kept and put before the next available court and then dealt with and released, maximum of 8 points on your licence and a fine!
By the way where in para 43 did the Judge say he was under arrest for motoring offences???
I await your humble apology!
-
By the time of the trial, he was a known habitual drugs user with 13 convictions for 33 offences, 22 of which related to dishonesty and deception''
Driving around at 4.00 am with his co-witness in the area where the offence occurred. They did not witness the crime but saw a person and then identified Mr Malkinson six months after the attack, in case where the victim mis-identified the attacker.
So here is a person described above being arrested (under threat of more charges) why would you want a person with so many problems (that were not disclosed to the defence at the original trial) as a reliable witness in any situation?
I would humbly suggest that if all the above had been released to the defence the trial would have ended differently.
Make your own mind up.
Added from your link sprot.
''Two other persons, Michael Seward and Beverley Craig, told the police that they had
been out together in the early hours, and had seen a man and a woman near the scene
of the crimes. They each gave a description of the man.
10. On 3rd August 2003 Beverley Craig took part in a video identification procedure.
After viewing the parade tape twice, she asked to look again at the images of the men
numbered 1 and 4. The appellant was number 4. Beverley Craig picked out number
1.
Immediately after the procedure had ended, however, she told a police officer that
she had picked the wrong man and that she was sure that number 4 was the man she
had seen.
11. Michael Seward did not attend an identification procedure until 14th January 2004, by
which time he had read descriptions of the attacker in the press and had seen an e-fit
drawing of the attacker. He picked out the appellant''
-
By the time of the trial, he was a known habitual drugs user with 13 convictions for 33 offences, 22 of which related to dishonesty and deception''
Driving around at 4.00 am with his co-witness in the area where the offence occurred. They did not witness the crime but saw a person and then identified Mr Malkinson six months after the attack, in case where the victim mis-identified the attacker.
So here is a person described above being arrested (under threat of more charges) why would you want a person with so many problems (that were not disclosed to the defence at the original trial) as a reliable witness in any situation?
I would humbly suggest that if all the above had been released to the defence the trial would have ended differently.
Sydders:
where does it say he had been arrested?
If he had been arrested for the Drug matters he would have been dealt with by means of a simple Caution if it matched the CPS Charging Matrix.
Sorry to disappoint you but you won’t find any misconduct there!
I do agree that had the Previous Cons been disclosed to the defence they could then have made a song and dance of his Shoplifting offence in 1994. But that would as I said have had to be weighed in relation to his evidence, the defence then had the job of trying to discredit the evidence of the other 2 witnesses.
-
You don't have to make any concessions sprot
''A full judgment from the court of appeal on Monday found Malkinson’s right to a fair trial had been breached when Greater Manchester police failed to hand over crucial evidence that should have been disclosed to his defence team''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/07/police-withheld-evidence-making-rape-conviction-unsafe-says-uk-court-of-appeal-andrew-malkinson
-
And addressing the corruption bit sprot:
''These pieces of evidence, if the defence had known about them, would have meant “the jury’s verdicts may have been different”, according to the judgment, delivered by Lord Justice Holroyde, vice-president of the court of appeal.
Greater Manchester police were deemed to have unlawfully withheld photographs of the victim and information about two unreliable witnesses, who were presented to the court as honest.
One of the witnesses had been asked to “look again” at a police lineup after picking out a different man, later changing it to Malkinson. The other witness was not asked to pick out the attacker until after he had been described in the press, and his memory may have been impaired by heroin and cannabis on the night of the attack. Both witnesses had previously been prosecuted for offences that included dishonesty''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/07/police-withheld-evidence-making-rape-conviction-unsafe-says-uk-court-of-appeal-andrew-malkinson
-
So sprot, any time you wish to say you got it wrong ............
-
So sprot, any time you wish to say you got it wrong ............
I won’t, where does it say in para 43 that he was arrested for no insurance, that is my question, kindly answer it and stop quoting Lefty Comics!
-
Sprot, from your first post on the subject #17 you have accused almost all others of not knowing the subject, posts #92 & 93 prove you don't read the evidence when put in front of your face.
-
Attempting to defend the undefendable after every new disclosure just cements the case even more, i wonder if this is the mindset of our current plod?
Then they wonder why the public have zero respect and confidence in them and their process.
Looking forward to a complete whitewash of an inquiry with no one guilty of anything more than being "under pressure and overworked"
-
Attempting to defend the undefendable after every new disclosure just cements the case even more, i wonder if this is the mindset of our current plod?
Then they wonder why the public have zero respect and confidence in them and their process.
Looking forward to a complete whitewash of an inquiry with no one guilty of anything more than being "under pressure and overworked"
I blame it all on Woke.
-
Sprot, from your first post on the subject #17 you have accused almost all others of not knowing the subject, posts #92 & 93 prove you don't read the evidence when put in front of your face.
I have twice posted the full judgements on this thread stick to that not your hysterical guardian comic report
-
Attempting to defend the undefendable after every new disclosure just cements the case even more, i wonder if this is the mindset of our current plod?
Then they wonder why the public have zero respect and confidence in them and their process.
Looking forward to a complete whitewash of an inquiry with no one guilty of anything more than being "under pressure and overworked"
I blame it all on Woke.
You accused me of misreading para 43 of the judgement , when actually that is what you did , pointed out that there is no reference in that para 43 to him being arrested!
“Hand up from me. I was wrong. Seward was under arrest for motoring and drugs offences, not theft, “
now man up and admit you were wrong..again