Andrew Malkinson, whose conviction was finally quashed on Wednesday, has rejected a police apology as “meaningless” and “hollow”.

3

And he now fears he will be hit in the pocket for board and lodging during his 17 years inside for a crime he didn’t commit.

The Ministry of Justice typically deducts costs for food and accommodation from any compensation ultimately paid out to people who have been wrongly convicted.

Mr Malkinson, 57, was found guilty of raping a woman in Salford, Greater Manchester, in 2003 and the following year was jailed for life with a minimum seven-year term.

He served 10 more years because he maintained his innocence throughout.

He was finally cleared on Wednesday after senior judges at the Court of Appeal in London quashed his conviction.

DNA linking another man had come to light.

Mr Malkinson has been speaking of his relief at belatedly going free – and his hopes of taking a long-awaited holiday.

But he has also condemned Greater Manchester Police for their handling of the case and now the prospect of him having to hand over money to the Prison Service.

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I feel very strongly about this.

“Somehow the Prison Service has, I guess, lobbied the government in the early 2000s.

“Even if you fight tooth and nail and gain compensation – it’s kind of sick – you then have to pay the prison service a large chunk of that, if you win compensation, for so-called ‘board and lodgings’, which is so abhorrent to me.

“I am sickened by it.”

Mr Malkinson, currently living on benefits, fears he also faces a struggle to secure a pay-out himself.

When asked whether he expected compensation, he told the programme: “I would, in a normal course of events.

“I lived in Holland for a long time which is a libertarian country and that would be, I understand, just the natural result of all this.

“But in England, somehow it’s become the norm to fight tooth and nail after you’ve already fought tooth and nail to clear your name – it’s a whole new battle.

“They don’t like paying compensation and there’s resistance every step of the way.”

The MoJ has described charging for board and lodging as “standard practice” since the 1995 Criminal Appeals Act yet compensation figures are “much, much higher”.

The idea of deductions was legally challenged by the Bridgewater Three, wrongly convicted of murdering newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater near Stourbridge in the West Midlands in 1978, but upheld by the House of Lords.

The MoJ has been contacted by The Sun Online for a response to Mr Malkinson’s criticisms.

He also today described how his time behind bars took an “extremely heavy toll” on his psyche and that “contemplated suicide many times”.

He also said it felt like he had been “kidnapped by the state”.

He said: “It’s taken an extremely heavy toll on my person, my psyche, my psychology, my being, my soul.

“I can’t articulate how I even managed to get through it.

“I was in total shock for the first even a few years.

“I contemplated suicide many times.”

One of the first things I thought was, this means I can go away on holiday

Andrew Malkinson

He also described his instinctive reaction the moment he learnt he was in the clear.

Mr Malkinson told the Guardian: “The judge said, ‘You can walk away a free man,’ and that’s when I started shaking.

“My eyes welled up but I wasn’t ready to start crying.

“One of the first things I thought was, this means I can go away on holiday.”

Greater Manchester Police issued an apology to him following the ruling.

Assistant Chief Constable Sarah Jackson said: “We are truly sorry to Mr Malkinson that he is the victim of such a grave miscarriage of justice in being convicted of a crime he did not commit and serving a 17-year custodial sentence.

“Whilst we hope this outcome gives him a long overdue sense of justice, we acknowledge that it does not return the years he has lost. I have offered to meet with him to personally deliver this apology.”

However Mr Malkinson dismissed their words as “meaningless” and “hollow”.

And he said the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates miscarriages of justice in England, only investigated his case after having evidence handed to them “on a platter”.

Overturning Mr Malkinson’s convictions, for two counts of rape and one of choking or strangling with intent to commit rape, Lord Justice Holroyde said he could “leave the court free and no longer be subject to the conditions of licence”.

At the time of Mr Malkinson’s trial, there was no DNA evidence linking him to the crime and the prosecution case against him was based only on identification evidence.

But a DNA sample, held by the forensic archive, was tested and found last October to link to another man, who has since been arrested.

A decision on whether he will be charged is awaited.

The CPS and GMP said in May they would not contest Mr Malkinson’s appeal.

‘DEPLORABLE FAILURES’

His lawyer Edward Henry criticised what he called “deplorable disclosure failures, which mostly lay at the door of the Greater Manchester Police”.

They include police photographs of the victim’s left hand, which supported her evidence that she broke a nail scratching the face of her attacker.

There was also the fact the two witnesses who identified Mr Malkinson had convictions for dishonesty offences and one was a heroin addict.

None of this was available to Mr Malkinson’s defence team at his trial.

And Mr Henry said the failure to disclose the photographs “deprived” Mr Malkinson of his “strongest defence point – his lack of any facial injury”.

Speaking outside the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, Mr Malkinson told reporters: “People convicted of rape are the lowest of the low.

“I did not commit the crime, but I was treated as if I did. I spent 17 years on my guard against every threat.

“Seventeen years counting down the minutes to lock up, so I could be behind my door and safe from other prisoners – but not safe from my own mind, imagining I would die there, perhaps murdered.

“But somehow I lived.”

Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham today described the case a “terrible miscarriage of justice” which raised “very serious issues”.

He told Sky News: “For people in the criminal justice system who are protesting their innocence that can, if you like, make it harder for them to secure their release and it can lengthen their sentences.

“That’s one issue that I think needs to be looked at and certainly was something that was unfair to Andrew Malkinson.”

He also had concerns about the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s “resourcing and whether they can move quickly enough given the importance of these matters”.

3

3