Wrongly jailed Malkinson hails benefits rule change, but will continue fighting
A change laid in a statutory instrument in Parliament on July 1, and coming into force on July 22, means that those who receive such compensation payments can continue to claim benefits.
Mr Malkinson outside the Royal Courts of Justice in 2023 after his conviction was quashed (Jordan Pettitt/PA)
Mr Malkinson said: 'When I was stuck behind my cell door I would never have believed that my case would lead to so many reforms – but I am determined to tear down the system that failed me for so long and is failing so many others.
'I am intensely relieved that thanks to this change to the law, I will still have access to benefits even though the state is starting to compensate me for my wrongful conviction.
'My compensation fund is supposed to pay for the support I need to help me heal, not just day to day life, and that sort of support is expensive, especially as I will need it for so many years to come.
'And this reform will be in place for those who come after me as well.'
Mr Malkinson was left living on benefits and using food banks after his release, having to wait two years to get his first interim compensation payment.
The 59-year-old has already successfully campaigned to stop prison lodging costs being deducted from payouts, and has spoken out against a £1 million cap on the compensation payments, and rules under which payments are only awarded to people who can prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ministry of Justice data showed that 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.
Mr Malkinson said: 'I remain determined to challenge the completely unfair cap on compensation for the wrongfully convicted – and the ridiculous requirement that a person in my position be required to prove their innocence a second time to get compensated.'
His solicitor Toby Wilton urged the government to lift the £1 million cap that was set in 2008.
The issue again came to the fore in a separate case in May, that saw Peter Sullivan freed from jail after serving 38 years for a murder he did not commit.
Mr Wilton said while the benefits change 'ends a stark injustice', further reforms are needed.
'Miscarriage of justice victims like Andy Malkinson will no longer lose their benefits or social housing on account of having received compensation under the statutory miscarriage of justice compensation scheme.
'They are free to use their compensation payments to try to rebuild their lives.
'But while Andy and other future applicants will no doubt breathe a sigh of relief, the truth is that this change tinkers around the edges of a miscarriage of justice compensation scheme which is not fit for purpose.
'Currently, compensation can only be paid to the very few applicants who can prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt – effectively forcing them to prove a negative.
'On top of this, the scheme arbitrarily disadvantages people like Andy who have suffered the most serious miscarriages of justice by capping compensation at £1 million.
'This cap was set in 2008 and would be worth nearly £2 million today, but while the Government has the power to change this cap or remove it, it has so far refused to do this.
'It must act now.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
21 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Fine witnesses who mislead select committees, MP urges
Mark Pritchard warned that witnesses 'get away with it' if they provide inaccurate evidence and statements. According Parliament's rulebook Erskine May, the Commons has not imposed a fine in 359 years, since 1666, the year the Great Fire of London broke out. 'Of course, there is the ministerial code, there are the Nolan Principles, and there is the contempt of Parliament procedures, but there hasn't been a fine since that time,' Mr Pritchard told the Commons. 'And for members and non-members alike, what is the deterrent? What is the incentive, even, for telling the truth to this place? 'Ministers of course can be brought back to the House, correct the record, but people giving evidence to select committees? There really is a gap at the moment. 'Isn't it time we put fines on a statutory basis for members and non-members alike so that we can always be assured that people are incentivised to tell the truth, and have a deterrent should they be tempted not to tell the truth?' Commons Leader Lucy Powell said Mr Pritchard had raised a 'very, very serious issue'. She added that there are 'many, many ways for members to hold ministers account', including by raising points of order, asking questions, and making complaints through a standards procedure. Conservative MP Mr Pritchard later told the PA news agency: 'The current sanctions for ministers and MPs work quite well, but for non-member witnesses giving evidence to Parliament, the sanctions are weak to non-existent. 'Fines for contempt before a select committee, for example, need to be put on a statutory footing. 'This will act as both a deterrent and incentive for all public officials and external witnesses who might be tempted, on the rarest of occasions, to mislead Parliament whilst giving evidence before any of Parliament's committees.' The Wrekin MP added: 'Currently, anyone apart from members and ministers can lie to Parliament, if they were so tempted, and get away with it. 'That is a significant gap in Parliament's powers to scrutinise. 'Other Parliaments have considerably more powers than Westminster to sanction anyone who lies to the legislature.' New Zealand's House of Representatives is one such Parliament, where its members can agree to fine people up to 1,000 US dollars for contempt.
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.
South Wales Argus
21 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Fine witnesses who mislead select committees, MP urges
Mark Pritchard warned that witnesses 'get away with it' if they provide inaccurate evidence and statements. According Parliament's rulebook Erskine May, the Commons has not imposed a fine in 359 years, since 1666, the year the Great Fire of London broke out. 'Of course, there is the ministerial code, there are the Nolan Principles, and there is the contempt of Parliament procedures, but there hasn't been a fine since that time,' Mr Pritchard told the Commons. 'And for members and non-members alike, what is the deterrent? What is the incentive, even, for telling the truth to this place? 'Ministers of course can be brought back to the House, correct the record, but people giving evidence to select committees? There really is a gap at the moment. 'Isn't it time we put fines on a statutory basis for members and non-members alike so that we can always be assured that people are incentivised to tell the truth, and have a deterrent should they be tempted not to tell the truth?' A recreation of the Great Fire Of London of 1666, the same year a fine was last issued by the Commons (Hannah McKay/PA) Commons Leader Lucy Powell said Mr Pritchard had raised a 'very, very serious issue'. She added that there are 'many, many ways for members to hold ministers account', including by raising points of order, asking questions, and making complaints through a standards procedure. Conservative MP Mr Pritchard later told the PA news agency: 'The current sanctions for ministers and MPs work quite well, but for non-member witnesses giving evidence to Parliament, the sanctions are weak to non-existent. 'Fines for contempt before a select committee, for example, need to be put on a statutory footing. 'This will act as both a deterrent and incentive for all public officials and external witnesses who might be tempted, on the rarest of occasions, to mislead Parliament whilst giving evidence before any of Parliament's committees.' The Wrekin MP added: 'Currently, anyone apart from members and ministers can lie to Parliament, if they were so tempted, and get away with it. 'That is a significant gap in Parliament's powers to scrutinise. 'Other Parliaments have considerably more powers than Westminster to sanction anyone who lies to the legislature.' New Zealand's House of Representatives is one such Parliament, where its members can agree to fine people up to 1,000 US dollars for contempt.
