Andrew Malkinson

[SydneyRover]

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''

[Sprotyrover]

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.

[SydneyRover]

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

[SydneyRover]

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

[SydneyRover]

So sprot, any time you wish to say you got it wrong ............

[Sprotyrover]

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!

[SydneyRover]

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.

[danumdon]

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"

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Sprotyrover]

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

[Sprotyrover]

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