Andrew Malkinson ‘not finished' fighting for reform after wrongful conviction
Mr Malkinson, who told The Sunday Times his 'life was desolated' by the wrongful conviction, says he is determined to change the justice system, starting with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
'I haven't finished. I want to change a lot more,' he said.
'It's a good feeling that something so dreadful and tragic is leading to real change.'
It comes amid news Dame Vera Baird KC will become the interim chairwoman of the CCRC.
The barrister will take up the post from June 9 until December 8 next year, and is tasked with carrying out an urgent review into the running of the independent body and making sure lessons have been learnt from previous cases.
Mr Malkinson said he remained 'incandescent' at the CCRC, as well as the Government's compensation scheme, which makes it difficult for wrongly-convicted people to receive payouts.
'This is an assault on innocent people,' he said.
'It's an assault on the public, because any member of the public could end up where I was. Anybody could be the next victim, because there will be more.'
Despite having his conviction quashed in 2023, he had to wait until February to get his first compensation payment.
Mr Malkinson had been living on benefits and food banks from his release until then.
Under the 2014 Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, payments are only awarded to people who can prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ministry of Justice data showed that only 6.5% of people who had applied for compensation due to a miscarriage of justice between April 2016 and March 2024 were awarded payouts. Of 591 people who applied, 39 were granted compensation.
Figures showed that 35 have since received money, with average amounts totalling £68,000.
In a statement in February, lawyer Toby Wilton welcomed the payment, but said the £1 million cap on compensation payouts should be lifted.
This is currently the maximum amount that can be paid to victims of miscarriages of justice who are wrongly jailed for at least 10 years.
'The Government should lift the current cap on compensation, and end the twisted quirk that whilst awards under other compensation schemes are excluded from assessment for benefits,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
21 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
More than 100 Britons' details in leaked Afghan dataset, including spies and SAS
Defence sources have said that details of MI6 spies, SAS and special forces personnel were included in the spreadsheet, after they had endorsed Afghans who had applied to be brought to the UK. The dataset, containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap), was released 'in error' in February 2022 by a defence official. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) became aware of the breach more than a year later, when excerpts of the spreadsheet were anonymously posted in a Facebook group in August 2023. Other details leaked included the names and contact details of the Arap applicants and names of their family members. Defence Secretary John Healey apologised on behalf of the British Government for the breach (Dan Kitwood/PA) In a statement on Tuesday, after an unprecedented superinjunction was lifted by a High Court judge, Defence Secretary John Healey offered a 'sincere apology' on behalf of the British Government for the data breach. He later told the Commons the spreadsheet contained 'names and contact details of applicants and, in some instances, information relating to applicants' family members, and in a small number of cases the names of members of Parliament, senior military officers and Government officials were noted as supporting the application'. 'This was a serious departmental error,' he added. Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge also apologised on behalf of the former Conservative government, which was in power when the leak happened and when it was discovered more than a year later. Mr Cartlidge later asked Mr Healey about reports that someone other than the original person who leaked the data had been engaged in blackmail. Arap was responsible for relocating Afghan nationals who had worked for or with the UK Government and were therefore at risk of reprisals once the Taliban returned to power in Kabul in 2021. Between 80,000 and 100,000 people, including the estimated number of family members of the Arap applicants, were affected by the breach and could be at risk of harassment, torture or death if the Taliban obtained their data, judges said in June 2024. However, an independent review, commissioned by the Government in January 2025, concluded last month that the dataset is 'unlikely to significantly shift Taliban understanding of individuals who may be of interest to them'. The breach resulted in the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route – by the previous government in April 2024. The scheme is understood to have cost around £400 million so far, with a projected cost once completed of around £850 million. Millions more are expected to be paid in legal costs and compensation. Around 4,500 people, made up of 900 Arap applicants and approximately 3,600 family members, have been brought to the UK or are in transit so far through the Afghanistan Response Route. A further estimated 600 people and their relatives are expected to be relocated before the scheme closes, with a total of around 6,900 people expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme. Projected costs of the scheme may include relocation costs, transitional accommodation, legal costs and local authority tariffs. The case returned to the High Court in London on Thursday, sitting in a closed session in the morning where journalists and their lawyers were excluded. While private hearings exclude the public and press but allow the parties in the case to remain, closed hearings require specific lawyers who can deal with sensitive issues, including national security. During the public part of the hearing, Mr Justice Chamberlain said that while he needed to give lawyers for the Ministry of Defence an 'opportunity' to argue why a closed hearing was needed, 'I will be scrutinising very carefully any justification for holding any part of this hearing in private, let alone in closed'. The judge later said he would not be 'kicking the ball down the road'. He added: 'The superinjunction has now been lifted and if there are other matters that are capable of being reported in public, that needs to be able to happen straight away.' Also on Thursday, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) requested a number of documents used in the superinjunction proceedings be provided to it 'immediately'. This includes intelligence assessments from the MoD and the Joint Intelligence Organisation, as well as the unredacted report of retired civil servant Paul Rimmer. ISC chairman Lord Beamish continued that the committee had also asked for the reasons why barristers for the Government previously told the Court of Appeal that information about the breach could not be shared with the ISC.
Metro
21 minutes ago
- Metro
I'm living in fear of repercussions after the Afghan data breach
The news stopped me in my tracks. 'Close to 7,000 Afghan nationals are being relocated to the UK because of a massive data breach by the British military,' the presenter said. They went on to explain that an email was leaked in 2022 with a spreadsheet containing the personal information of almost 19,000 Afghans who applied to come to the UK. I was shocked. As an Afghan national who worked with the British Government before fleeing to the UK in August 2021, this video was the first I was hearing of any leak – three years after it happened. My personal details – along with the names of my family still in Afghanistan – might be included in this data breach, which could put everyone I know in grave danger. And no one in the Government thought to warn me. I immediately felt sick to my stomach. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video I first started working with a British organisation in 2019, managing Her Majesty's Government (HMG) contracts. Our work made us targets for the Taliban, to the point where we regularly had to wear bulletproof vests, hard hats, and hide in safe rooms at the office. My job was so high risk that I couldn't even tell my family, or even my partner. Instead, they thought I worked in construction. In early 2021, news started spreading that western forces were going to pull out of Afghanistan – a move that would see the Taliban take over the country and put me in certain danger. Thankfully, by April, the UK Government introduced the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP), which offered an escape plan for people who had worked with the British Government to flee to the UK. I applied shortly after and was grateful to find out within a couple of months that both my wife and I had been approved. Telling my family – especially my widowed mother – that I was leaving the country was one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. Heartbreakingly, I couldn't tell them the real reason for their own safety, so they think I moved for a scholarship. My own wife only found out about my real job a day before we were due to escape the country – I sat her down and finally explained everything. She understood why I couldn't tell her the truth and was sad to be leaving our home, but thankful for a route out of an increasingly politically unstable situation. It was early August – around a week before Kabul fell to the Taliban – that we finally flew out. Getting on that chartered plane with just two suitcases full of clothes, I felt numb. It was all happening so fast – even the 16-hour flight to Birmingham was a total blur. The gravity of the situation didn't properly hit me until later that month when I saw videos of people desperately clinging to planes to escape and falling off to their deaths. It was all just so traumatising. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video My wife and I settled in the UK – and have since felt very blessed to have welcomed children – but we've regularly kept in contact with our families, especially in those early days. They're safe, but they still don't know the real reason why we left almost four years ago. If the Taliban found out what I used to do, my family could be hunted down and killed. That's why this recent leak is such a betrayal – and the Government's silence on it is so galling. I understand there was a superinjunction to stop the leak from being talked about, but they could've at least informed all the people affected. Defence Secretary John Healey told the Commons this week that it was a 'serious departmental error' and that he felt 'deeply concerned about the lack of transparency to parliament and the public'. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video But where is the transparency in not personally alerting Afghans in the UK? If 18,714 Afghans had their personal information leaked, each and every one of us should be notified. I'd argue that even the people who weren't affected by the leak should still be notified, if they were part of the ARAP scheme like me. Thankfully, around 4,500 Afghans have since been settled in the UK as a direct result of being in danger from the leak, with a further 600 invitations being offered. This is through an until-recently secret emergency scheme called the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR). But both this scheme and the ARAP one that I was on are now closed. Terrifyingly, a Taliban spokesperson claimed on Wednesday to the Telegraph that they have possession of the list and have been 'calling and visiting their family members to track them down'. If true, this is devastating. The danger for this leak is real for people still living in Afghanistan – and for the families of people still living there, like mine. As for me, I can't warn my family that they may be at risk from this leak because naivety would be best for them if they were questioned. So I feel so helpless. More Trending That's why I believe that the Government has a responsibility to find safe routes for all the people they inadvertently put in danger. In an ideal world, they would provide safe passage to both mine and my wife's families. All this time, I've thought that being so secretive about why I left could potentially mean that I could go back to my home country one day if I needed to – like for a family member's funeral. But the mere existence of this list and my potentially being on it means that could never happen. And losing that hope is devastating. As told to James Besanvalle Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing Share your views in the comments below. MORE: Voting age to be lowered to 16 by the next general election MORE: Here's how it could become harder for people-smugglers to reach the UK MORE: My boss asked me to polish table legs as he watched
The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What happens when 16-year-olds get the vote? Other countries are already seeing the benefits
The government has announced it will lower the voting age to 16 for all UK elections in time for the next general election. In 1969, the UK became the first major democracy in the world to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. Few people knew what to expect from this change. Things are different now. In places such as Austria, Argentina and Brazil, as well as parts of Germany and, in the UK, Wales and Scotland, 16- and 17-year-olds are already allowed to vote in some or all elections. We can learn a lot from these places about what happens when 16- and 17-year-olds get the vote. My colleagues and I have spent years researching this, and our main finding is simple: nothing bad happens when the voting age is lowered to 16. Including 16- and 17-year-olds in the electorate does not change election outcomes and it does not make elections less representative. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds are just as qualified to vote as other voters. Research from Germany and Austria shows that they are able to pick a political party or representative that best represents their views to the same extent as other, slightly older voters. But some things may get better for young people and for democracy overall, especially if young people are taken seriously as voters and receive good education on political issues. Here is what to expect when 16- and 17-year-olds get to vote in the UK general election. When 16- and 17-year-olds get to vote at the next UK election, expect them to turn out in about the same numbers as other voters, and slightly more often than other first-time voters (those aged 18 to 20). In Austria, Latin America, Scotland, Wales and German federal states that lowered the voting age to 16, my colleagues and I consistently find that, when allowed to vote, 16- and 17-year-olds turn out at higher rates than young people who were enfranchised at age 18. Younger people who are in full-time education and often still live at home can make for better, more engaged first-time voters compared with 18- to 20-year-olds, who often experience their first election in a highly transitory phase of their lives, while moving out of the parental home, taking up work or further education. A lower voting age is unlikely to change election outcomes. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds make up between 1.5% and less than 5% of the population in constituencies across the UK. They will have a very small impact on vote shares – and only in the most extreme (and improbable) scenario that all 16- and 17-year-olds turned out to vote and decided to vote in the same way. Those who say that lowering the voting age to 16 is Labour's move to secure more votes at the next general election might be mistaken. Young people as a group have diverse political attitudes; they do not all vote for the same political parties. In Brazil, young people voted quite similarly to other age groups in the 2022 presidential election and in Austria, where young people have been enfranchised since 2007, the inclusion of 16- and 17-year-olds in the electorate did not change the political landscape. Even for marginal elections, such as Scotland's 2014 referendum on independence, my colleague Jan Eichhorn from the University of Edinburgh showed that the inclusion of 16- and 17-year-olds did not change the outcome of the referendum as the youngest first-time voters cast their votes in diverse ways. Any political party can win the support of first-time voters. To do so, political parties have to engage with young people and offer attractive policy proposals. We might also see the media show more younger voters in their reporting. In 2014, BBC Scotland raised the visibility of 16- and 17-year-olds by creating a diverse panel of young first-time voters, who provided input into political programmes, appeared on shows and were among the audience in the final referendum TV debate. Young people who are allowed to vote also influence the adults in their lives. If young people are allowed to participate in elections at 16 and 17, when most are still living at home with their parents, they have the potential to shape political discussions within the family or household. In an ageing society, dinner-table conversations about political issues and across generations can be a good outcome. In the longer term, including 16- and 17-year-olds in the electorate might make democracy more resilient. In Austria and Latin America, young people who were enfranchised at 16 or 17 were more satisfied with democracy and democratic institutions – parliament or political parties. The lowering of the voting age also provides an opportunity to address inequalities in who participates in elections. Across all ages we see stark differences in who turns out to vote and who does not. After the lowering of the voting age in Scotland, however, we found 16- and 17-year-olds to be equally engaged with elections, regardless of their social background. Schools and colleges play a crucial role in compensating for the lack of parents or peers to get young people voting. Good and statutory education for all young people makes a big difference for democracy in the long term. Austria has done well in coupling the lowering of the voting age with a big reform of and investment in civic and citizenship education. In Scotland, young adults who remembered taking classes in school in which political issues were discussed were more likely to turn out in elections throughout their 20s. Christine Huebner is a lecturer in quantitative social sciences at the University of Sheffield Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
