Man declared innocent, criticizes £1M offer after being wrongfully jailed for 17 years

A man named Andrew Malkinson, who was wrongfully jailed for 17 years for a crime he did not commit, has expressed his discontent with the £1 million (approximately N850 million) compensation offered to him, stating that it falls short of the ordeal he endured.

Malkinson’s conviction was overturned last month due to fresh DNA evidence linking another individual to the crime, sparking conversations about the adequacy of compensation for those wrongfully imprisoned.

Malkinson, 57, criticized the “miscarriage of justice scheme,” which placed a cap of £1 million on compensation for victims of wrongful imprisonment who had served ten or more years.

The recent rule change, announced by Justice Secretary Alex Chalk KC, eliminates this cap following Malkinson’s case.

Speaking to Sky’s crime correspondent Martin Brunt, Malkinson labeled the rule “abhorrent” and “vindictive,” emphasizing its unnecessary and unjust nature.

Mr. Malkinson said; “I think it [the rule] is abhorrent. “It is a very silly, very vindictive, actually. It is completely necessary.”

He further questioned the fairness of the compensation amount he is poised to receive, given that he endured nearly double the ten-year benchmark for the capped payout.

 “It’s pretty lamentable. £1million sounds like a lot of money, but that represents nearly two decades of living hell and lost opportunities and lost love and everything else that makes life precious.

‘It’s capped at ten years, but what happens to people like me who’ve spent much longer than ten years [in prison], almost double? It seems very unfair.

‘I don’t think any amount would be enough, but it should be significantly higher than it is,” he added.

Malkinson acknowledged that it might take years for him to receive the compensation, which he admitted would provide him with a semblance of financial comfort.

Nevertheless, he underlined that it was the minimum owed to him by the justice system, given the profound impact on his life and well-being. He remarked that the compensation could never replace the happiness and joy that was stolen from him.

One contentious element of the previous scheme was the potential deduction of funds as “rent” for the time spent in prison.

This rule faced criticism from both Malkinson and various quarters, including Downing Street. The scheme change was welcomed by Malkinson, who regarded it as the first step toward necessary reforms within the justice system.

Malkinson’s conviction traces back to a 2003 attack in Salford, Greater Manchester. Despite the absence of DNA evidence linking him to the crime and his steadfast claims of innocence, he was sentenced to at least seven years in prison.

His case was only referred to the Court of Appeal in January after DNA belonging to another individual was discovered on the victim’s clothing fragments.

The swift action taken by Justice Secretary Alex Chalk KC to amend the scheme was lauded by Sir Bob Neill, chairman of the Commons justice committee.

However, he urged the government to go further, suggesting the possibility of retrospective refunds for those who had already suffered unjust compensation deductions.

Emily Bolton, director of the charity Appeal and Malkinson’s solicitor, called for a more comprehensive response from the government, describing the need for a complete overhaul of the appeals system.

She emphasized that Malkinson’s case represents just one example of the larger systemic issues that require addressing.

She said;

“The state robbed Andy of the best years of his life. Changing this one rule is not an adequate response. We need a complete overhaul of the appeals system.’

To qualify for compensation under the revised scheme, people must apply within two years of receiving a pardon or having their convictions reversed.