Salford rape appeal: Andrew Malkinson says clearing his name is vital

Andrew Malkinson says the rape conviction has "taken a huge toll" on him

A man who was jailed for a rape he insists he did not commit has said clearing his name is the "single most important thing" in his life as he appeared at the Court of Appeal.

Andrew Malkinson, 57, originally of Grimsby, was convicted of strangling and raping a woman in Salford in 2003.

He said he hoped the court reaches "the right decision and quashes the conviction" after three senior judges set his appeal for July.

He said it had caused him real misery.

The victim, who had been walking home in the early hours of 19 July 2003 in Cleggs Lane, Little Hulton, was sexually assaulted after being throttled until she was unconscious and suffered a broken neck and a fractured cheekbone.

Mr Malkinson was found guilty of the attack and jailed for life with a minimum term of seven years, but remained in prison for a further 10 because he maintained he was innocent.

He spoke outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London following a hearing for his appeal against his conviction, which centres around new DNA evidence pointing to another potential suspect.

Mr Malkinson said the conviction had "taken a huge toll on his life".

Crime-specific DNA

He said clearing his name was "the single most important thing in my life since the day I was convicted".

"I come from a strong, honourable family. My father and grandfather were military men and they fought with distinction.

"I am proud to be a Malkinson and they have tarnished our name. I could never do what they accused me of, never.

"I want the court to find I am innocent, if they don't I will keep on fighting."

The victim was attacked in the early hours of 19 July 2003 in Cleggs Lane, Little Hulton

The case was referred to the Court of Appeal in January by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) after new DNA evidence was discovered.

Edward Henry KC, representing Mr Malkinson, told the court the CCRC was aware since 2009 there was "crime specific" DNA which was not a match for either Mr Malkinson or the victim.

However, he said at that time the CCRC "did not consider it tipped the balance towards a referral" to the Court of Appeal.

But, in October, the sample was found to be a partial match for another man, who the court ordered can only be identified as "Mr B", and forensic investigations were ongoing, with a final report due later this month.

Greater Manchester Police confirmed in January a man had been arrested and released under investigation in light of the new information, but no decision has yet been made on whether he will be charged.

Mr Henry said that, "to this day" no DNA evidence to link Mr Malkinson to the crime had ever been deduced.

'Profound urgency'

The prosecution case against him at his trial was based solely on identification evidence.

Mr Henry said the case should be handled with "profound urgency", despite the fact Mr Malkinson was freed from jail in December 2020.

"It should be recognised he served more than double his sentence because he protested his innocence, as he had done from the outset, and shortly after his arrest in interview he had asked for everything to be DNA swabbed," he said.

Mr Henry also told the court there was a photo of the victim's hand which corroborated evidence she had scratched the attacker and broke a nail, which had not been disclosed to the defence during the trial.

He also said evidence that one of the key identification witnesses was a "long-term user of heroin" , which could have affected his memory, was also not known by Mr Malkinson's legal team.

Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mrs Justice McGowan and Mr Justice Holgate, said the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has until 23 June to either file a response to the appeal or notify Mr Malkinson if it does not intend to oppose it and until 9 June to re-interview the victim.

Why not follow BBC North West on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram? You can also send story ideas to [e-mail]