We Got Our Man! (But did we?): How Andrew Malkinson, Henry Nowak and Brian Buckle et al suffered at the hands of the police and how the media responds

Andy Malkinson

Henry Nowak

Brian Buckle

Oh, the excitement! The self congratulation! The thrill of ‘we did it!’

Andrew Malkinson is free, Paul Quinn is banged up for 21 years, (minimum 14), plus an extended licence, and all is right with the world. Manchester Police are patting each other on the back, the CPS have doubtless been popping corks in celebration (isn’t that what all politicians do and the DPP is nothing if not a politician), and the media is rubbing its hands with glee. It’s done! It’s dusted! We can all move on to the next thing confident in a job well done.

But can we and is it?

Paul Quinn is apparently maintaining his innocence but the police are making noises about ‘other victims’, doing their usual trawling, and in fact, the whole thing has been treated as a slam dunk with, they hope more convictions to come. Gotta keep those figures climbing!

It was Greater Manchester Police who insisted that Andrew Malkinson was the culprit, the CPS that proceeded with a prosecution despite the victim’s doubts, the CCRC that refused to take any notice of Andrew Malkinson’s protestations of innocence for longer than Paul Quinn’s minimum term, and Greater Manchester Police who built the case against Paul Quinn. The whole system got it wrong then. What’s to say that they haven’t got it wrong now?

I’m not for a moment saying that Paul Quinn is innocent or isn’t guilty. I don’t know. But I am saying that the situation ought to be looked at dispassionately, without all of the hype, hysteria and assumptions – hype because of the way the media approach the ‘story’, hysteria because of the way social media approaches the issues and assumptions because of the way individuals promote their assumptions and conclusions. The situation requires cast iron evidence.

I wrote about the Andrew Malkinson situation here and here, and frankly, nothing much has changed. There are still many unanswered questions – what happened to the carefully placed handbag, where did its contents go, what placed the accused at the scene, etc, etc? The investigation was poor back then and nothing appears to have taken place in this investigation that addresses any of those points, as surely it should if they now have the ‘correct’ person.

Unsurprisingly, little has been said about Paul Quinn’s defence that doesn’t present him in a poor light, but frankly, can any promiscuous person, male or female, remember all their sexual partners from 20+ years ago? Not remembering whether or not sex was had with any particular person is not proof of guilt. Lawyers and women’s organisations make much of the failing memories of victims and the regularity with which they can change their minds about what actually happened. It is insisted that these are normal responses to trauma and time, yet Paul Quinn’s ex-wife is apparently 100% sure that he arrived home without his t-shirt on a very specific night 20+ years ago. Is this a question of always believe women and never believe men?

Much has been said about Paul Quinn’s previous convictions for sexual crime, as if this guarantees guilt of this particular crime on this particular date. (Previous convictions, lived closest to the crime scene and yet wasn’t questioned at the time, mmm?)  Yet when women are presenting as victims of rape, previous behaviour is not considered proof of consent – nor should it be – and dates, even years, get changed on the basis of not expecting a victim to remember detail after time, but what applies in the one instance should apply to the other. The fact that he sexually assaulted women and girls from a young age does not guarantee anything. In a British court of law, proof is still required. We have a very worrying situation when the definition of rape has been so altered that his conviction when aged 15 ‘would have been prosecuted as rape today’ and women can ‘refuse’ an acquittal in the Crown Court and win civil proceedings to claim compensation, but that’s a conversation for another day. It is still supposedly the responsibility of the police to demonstrate that this man raped this woman on this date at this time of day to gain a conviction in the Crown Court.

The CPS can’t even get it right when their spokesperson speaks of a rape that happened ‘in broad daylight’ which in fact happened in the small hours of the morning, or perhaps late at night, who knows such is the quest for drama and faux outrage. ‘In broad daylight’, ‘late at night’, ‘in the small hours of the morning’  and ‘between 4 and 5am’ are all phrases used to describe the timing of the attack in various official reports. Which was it? Whatever happened to accuracy in police and CPS statements? (see, Updated with sentence: Man convicted of rape, choking and inflicting GBH after Manchester attack in 2003 | The Crown Prosecution Service).

How many of them tie in with him, according to his ex-wife, returning home from a night out without his t-shirt ‘that evening’ How can a man responsible for a rape between 4 and 5am be returning home in ‘the evening’ rather than close to breakfast time. If that detail doesn’t matter, what of others?

So, we come to the question of the DNA. Paul Quinn accepts that the DNA is his on the top and on the speculum, but has no explanation for how it got there. Now, DNA is an accurate identifier in 99.9% of cases in perfect circumstances – a good quality and fresh sample. Old samples poorly stored are somewhat more problematic, though this sample is being presented as the Holy Grail of proof of rape. ‘It’s a one in a billion chance it’s not his so he’s guilty’ has featured on social media, but let’s examine that a little more closely and do the maths. One in a billion is one ten-millionth of one percent, rather less than the one tenth of a percent accuracy of a perfect sample. Additionally, DNA is not a perfect indicator as Lydia Fairchild and her chimerism will attest (see DNA evidence | Embryo Project Encyclopedia).

Again, I’m not suggesting that the DNA in this case does not belong to Paul Quinn, simply that the hyperbole surrounding it and the suggestion that it’s presence is cast iron proof of rape is misplaced - just as in the case of Victor Nealon, (prosecuted by West Midlands Police), where the MOJ deemed that he must pay the costs of DNA analysis because ‘[it] did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not commit the crime’. Equally, DNA analysis on its own, does not demonstrate that anyone DID commit a crime or even explain how it got where it is found. Further and different proof is required (see DNA in Sexual Offence Cases | How DNA Evidence Is Used).

Anything other than evidence placing the defendant at the scene is purely circumstantial. Where is the evidence placing Paul Quinn at the scene, or anywhere near at that time in the morning? Knowing the area and frequenting it regularly means little; even nothing.

Presenting the victim as having ‘waited for justice for 20 years’ and being a ‘hero’ is somewhat overblown too. She thought the right man had been convicted so she thought she HAD got justice. She wasn’t waiting for anything. She didn’t know that the blame was originally placed on the wrong head, didn’t know that Greater Manchester Police and the CPS had forged ahead with charges and a trial despite building a case with great holes in it.

But wait – she did.

She expressed doubts that Andrew Malkinson was the guilty party that were brushed aside by the police and in all the 17 years he was in jail she didn’t come forward to voice them. To describe her as a ‘hero’ as HHJ Robert Bright did, might be warm words, lapped up by the women’s organisations but what is really heroic about that? I have EVERY sympathy for her ordeal, despite the fact that one medical expert at the time gave evidence that in his opinion her injuries could have been caused by falling down the embankment, but it has to be asked, why has she not addressed those doubts directly in her victim statement, said something that acknowledges the part she, (even unwittingly and unintentionally), played in his conviction? Alice Sebold was no different in 2021 when Anthony Broadwater in the USA was exonerated having been wrongly convicted of raping her and serving 16 years in jail. Her ‘apology’ was in the passive voice and failed to address the role she played. No-one - NO-ONE - seems to expect women to accept responsibility for the mistakes they make, no matter the devastating effects those mistakes may have on others.

Do not forget that Andrew Malkinson was convicted on a majority verdict, so doubt was clearly in place at the outset, but the system STILL insisted on keeping him jailed for the longest possible time, knowing that tests could have been made to free him sooner. Again, the system protected itself until the last possible moment; until it could no longer be sustained.

Having blithely stated that ‘having considered all the evidence, Paul Quinn was convicted of 2 counts of rape, inflicting grievous bodily harm and choking with intent to commit a sexual offence’, I have to ask, ALL the evidence? DNA, an alleged missing t-shirt, knowledge of the area and suspect Google searches are I agree, compelling, but if Paul Quinn returned from ‘an evening out’ rather than ‘a night away from home’ (given that he couldn’t have arrived home before 4-5am at the earliest, if that was the time of the rape, is that not a cause for a query? There is a remarkable lack of consistency in the reporting by both the authorities and the media and these details DO matter.

Again, I am not claiming that Paul Quinn is innocent, just asking if there is any reason to assume that the (same) police force didn’t build a case in the same way as they did with Andrew Malkinson. Have they got the right person by accident rather than design, as happened with Peter Sutcliffe? Is their case as watertight as they as claiming it is? Even if they have got the right man, has their investigation been any better than the investigation that saw Andrew Malkinson jailed?

Paul Quinn may well admit guilt when he realises that not doing so may well see him jailed well beyond his minimum term and end up approaching his 70’s, and some would say that he should have received the life sentence imposed on Andrew Malkinson. HHJ Bright stated that he had taken Mr Malkinson’s ordeal into account so it makes one wonder what sentence he would have imposed if he had not and why a life sentence was considered appropriate in 2004 but not now.

It was reported in the press in late 2023 that the IOPC was investigating the original Andrew Malkinson police investigation, pointing out that evidence was destroyed and there were disclosure failures, but the media has been silent on the matter since. One wonders again, if it will be any different for this investigation, given that the IOPC freely admitted in its recent update regarding the Andrew Malkinson investigation, that:

‘To date, we have informed five former officers that their conduct is under investigation for potential gross misconduct and one serving officer that they are being investigated for possible misconduct. One of the former officers is also under criminal investigation for potential misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice. This means there is an indication the officers may have acted in a way that would justify disciplinary or criminal proceedings, but does not necessarily mean such proceedings follow. We will decide whether disciplinary proceedings and referral to the Crown Prosecution Service are required once the investigator’s report has been finalised' (my italics).

Given that few police officers are ever convicted of criminal actions/misconduct in the line of duty, it’s difficult to be confident that justice will prevail and that Andrew Malkinson will get the justice HE deserves – or that in the fullness of time there can be confidence that the investigation into and trial of Paul Quinn was as thorough and unbiased as it should have been.

Let’s move on to the tragic case of the murder of Henry Nowak, (a case conducted by Hampshire Police) but again, a case making headline news.

In this case, Vickrum Singh Digwa was convicted in May 2026 of the stabbing murder of 18-year-old Henry, with Vickrum’s brother falsely claiming, (those ‘vanishingly rare’ false accusations again), that it was in self defence after a racial attack by Henry and Vickrum’s mother hiding the murder weapon. When Southampton Police arrived on the scene, they treated Henry as the aggressor without question, failed to secure medical treatment for him immediately and ignored his pleas that he could not breathe and had been stabbed. Vickrum Singh Digwa was ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years. His mother, Kiran Kaur, was convicted of assisting an offender and will be sentenced in July 2026. There were no reported consequences for Gurpreet Digwa’s false accusations of assault and racism, despite him and his father facing multiple other charges relating to the possession of offensive weapons at trials scheduled for later in 2026.

Though there were no witnesses to the stabbing, when police arrived they spoke first with Vickrum, accepted his version of events, and failed to investigate Henry’s claims that he could not breathe and had been stabbed, even telling him that he had not been stabbed, despite multiple injuries.

They ‘had their man’.

Instead, they dragged him across gravel, arrested and handcuffed him. It wasn’t until he was unresponsive that medical attention was called for, though it was later confirmed that his injuries were serious enough to be fatal, no matter how quickly medical help was sought.

Police had evidence of the fact that the allegation that Henry was the aggressor after secretly recording Vickram talking to his brother two days after Henry’s death but chose to suppress that (see https://x.com/Banksycat/status/2063672608655397317/video/1).

Three days after the event, the police were still describing Henry as the aggressor and would have released a press statement to that effect if Henry’s family had not expressed outrage and insisted on a change in the wording and they tried again during the trial (see Hampshire Police planned intervention during trial of Henry Nowak's killer | UK News | Sky News).

This is not honest policing. This is a system protecting itself.

Again.

The traumatic and degrading circumstances of Henry’s death were exacerbated by the police response – a response that took lies at face value and did not assess the situation for themselves, in an unbiased and thorough manner as police protocol supposedly demands, and the media addressed this as if a new issue, asking questions that have been being asked for years if not decades (see Henry Nowak's death raises more questions about UK policing and race - BBC News).

Politicians too, were quick to use his death for perceived political gain with calls to meet it with ‘cold rage’ in direct contravention of Henry’s parents wishes, thus raising the public temperature (see Farage ignores wishes of Henry Nowak's family by politicising his death).

Again, the police acted as if they ‘had their man’ when still not in full possession of the facts and they arguably behaved with racist bias themselves. Anyone looking for consequences need not hold their breath.

The inquest into Henry’s death has been adjourned until September 2027, an IOPC investigation has begun and because Henry died in police custody, Article 2 of the EHCR has come into play, the IOPC has been involved, but all investigations that will likely take months to complete, by which time media interest will have waned. I imagine few have any confidence that anyone in the police force will be held accountable, from officers on the ground to those in charge.

For the moment though, the conviction and police actions have resulted in protests in which several police officers were injured, so the effects of a single event of minutes late one night last year will last a very long time for some individuals, and a lifetime for Henry’s family.

Currently national and international outrage is great, with the case garnering attention across the western world from the public and politicians. Discussions about ‘two-tier policing’ ‘police fears of being seen as racist’ and the like abound and the press is overflowing with opinions and statements from politicians of every colour, activists of every persuasion and every official from the Chief Constable down. It’s become exhausting to read and difficult to follow. Unverified reports of Vickrum being injured in Armley Jail have surfaced and may turn out to be more false allegations.

But herein lies the rub – if history repeats itself, (and why would it not?), within a short space of time, the hub-bub will die down, the media interest will wane, and it will be months before we hear any more about the consequences for any police officers or hierarchy, the conclusion of the inquest or the results of the IOPC investigation, if in fact we hear anything more at all.

More likely, all will return to ‘business as usual’ with police forces conducting investigations as they always have done and consequences and meaningful change for those so badly affected remaining a pipe dream.

It is not just Greater Manchester and Hampshire Police forces which fail innocent people so drastically. There are so many examples:

The many victims of Derek Ridgeway ((1972-1980) British Transport Police

The Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 and others (1975) Metropolitan Police

Steven Kitzko (1975) West Yorkshire Police

Paul Blackburn ((1978) Cheshire Police

Peter Sutcliffe (1981) West Yorkshire Police

Peter Sullivan (1987) Merseyside Police

Michael O’Brien, Darren Hall and Ellis Sherwood (1987) South Wales Police

Sally Clark (1999)  Cheshire Police

and on and on.

It can take DECADES for these debacles - criminals not detained when they should be or the wrong man or woman detained and convicted – to be resolved with nothing in the way of consequences for officers or apologies for those involved, and there are many more still held in the system .

Clive Freeman, Jeremy Bamber, Robin Garbutt, and Lucy Letby are all high profile cases that are currently struggling against a system determined to find any excuse to not admit its mistakes, even at the expense of jailing innocent people for the rest of their lives. How many more are there that the media fails to highlight and chooses to ignore?

Is there any police force, any part of the justice system that is competent; that can be relied upon to do what is right for people wronged by it?

Look at what is happening for the Post Office sub-postmasters and postmistresses, waiting literally YEARS for compensation payments that are now being dwarfed by the costs paid to the legal profession.

Look what has happened to Brian Buckle, exonerated and released from a 33-year-15-year-minimum-term jail sentence in May 2023. Press attention was fierce and periodically, despite him and his family having to deal with the pressure and damage of the 5 years he spent in jail, it comes to the surface again as he wends his way through the legal nightmare of claiming compensation. His MP, Ben Lake, is one of pitifully few politicians who take these issues seriously and do their best to help, raising questions in parliament. And, yet, anyone who is asked agrees that he should be compensated for his time in jail. Despite the fact that his appeal cost a staggeringly huge amount of money (£500,000), he remains un-compensated; like Victor Nealon, Gareth Jones and so many others, deemed ‘not innocent enough’.

DNA can apparently, as in the case of Paul Quinn, be considered enough to demonstrate that a sexual crime took place, but its absence, or proof of its maliciously placed presence, is not enough to demonstrate that a sexual crime did not. Although guilt is supposed to be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and an accused person remains ‘legally innocent’ if doubt is shown, when it comes to being compensated for a wrongful conviction, the state demands innocence to be proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.

Despite even the Prime Minister declaring in Parliament that Brain Buckle had clearly ‘suffered a grave injustice’ and promising that his claim for compensation would be looked at again, by him no less, a completely unprecedented action, his claim was rejected for a second time and he was sent a ‘form’ rejection without comment from anyone, least of all the Prime Minister who, one might say, had a moral duty to treat Brian with basic respect and contact him with the result of his ‘look’. Brian is deemed innocent but ‘has not proved his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt’, a useful catchphrase that the authorities hide behind. Once they have ‘got their man’, they keep him, no matter what and no-one is held responsible or is there redress.

As Stephen Vullo, Brian’s excellent and hardworking KC, in this instance so committed to the wrongs of Brian’s situation he is working pro bono, has pointed out, the changes brought about in 2014 requiring that the wrongly convicted prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt were deliberate. They are designed to minimise the responsibility of government to offer the wrongfully convicted redress; to keep the compensation bill low to nil and from 2016 to 2024, of the 591 applications for compensation by miscarriage of justice victims, only 39 were granted – less than 7%. It was only after a public outcry regarding Andrew Malkinson’s compensation payment that Alex Chalk, the then Minister for Justice withdrew the board and lodging deduction. How mealy-mouthed and penny-pinching can the government get?

Sir Richard Henriques, who wrote the 2016 report on Operation Midland that heavily criticised the Metropolitan Police's handling of false accusations of sex abuse against prominent people, believes:

‘As soon as [the police] find some evidence that tends to support an allegation, a charge follows and the investigative process ceases - and that is wrong.’

In over a decade, nothing has changed.

The police SHOULD (since 1995/6 at least) be investigating all avenues of investigation and not just taking the word of a complainant. This is set by the College of Policing; their own stated standards:

‘A police officer is legally required to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry during a criminal investigation, regardless of whether the evidence points towards or away from the defendant. This ensures a fair process and prevents wrongful accusations or convictions.’

This is detailed in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 s. 23 (1) and in the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Investigations, specifically the section on disclosure and on the conduct of investigations.

The Police in Scotland are required to follow the Police Service of Scotland policies, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and disclosure obligations.

See for instance Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) Disclosure Manual Chapter 3, ‘The obligation of the police and other investigating agencies to submit relevant information to the Crown", paragraphs 3.3.1–3.3.5, which state investigators must 'pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry, including any line of enquiry that might point away from the accused' and that the Crown can require police to carry out particular enquiries.

Yet defendants, in Scotland in particular, report being summoned to court and put on trial without even having even been interviewed by a police officer, and anecdotally, Procurator Fiscal policy can be ‘let the court decide’. This causes great distress to defendants unable to put their version of events and ultimately wasting court time and resources when trials crack or defendants are acquitted, all, presumably, in the quest for convictions,

Ultimately, the vicious and cruel effects of a government using every ploy possible to make sure that wrongfully convicted, (and incidentally the wrongly remanded), receive no recompense for the life-changing effects they and their families suffer remain effectively unchallenged. Those who should be holding the authorities to account and asking pertinent questions have a narrative and agenda of their own. MP’s are disinterested, even the ones who suffer the consequences of false accusations themselves, and the media is only interested in the next ‘story’. Investigative journalism and programmes like Rough Justice have ‘died a death’ and documentaries are often a 5-minute-wonder with only a limited viewing window (see BBC News - The Issue, Cost Of Innocence).

One wonders if the latest offering featuring Jeremy Bamber will fare any better (see 'Gripping' Jeremy Bamber drama White House Farm free to air now).

Prime Minister promises SHOULD command attention, but what happened to that promise Kier Starmer made to look at Brian Buckle’s claim?

NOTHING.

No further statement, just another ‘form letter’ to Brian in April 2026, rejecting the claim again - and predictably, no press interest.

Not a single media outlet has reported on this further slap in the face for Brian, and not a word from the politicians either, least of all the very man who promised he would ‘look at the case’. Did he? What did he decide? Why? Brian deserves to know.

They got their man and they are not letting him go with anything in the way of the means to reclaim his life. Meanwhile, Brian is painfully aware that the person who falsely accused him WAS assaulted by another man, the police are aware of this and yet nothing is being done in that regard; HE remains at large. What kind of an insult is that? To know that your life is ruined in so many ways, but that the man who committed the crimes that you were blamed for carries on as if nothing is amiss? No ‘Paul Quinn’ for Brian, and deliberately so.

Can the police get nothing right?

Are our societal systems not responsible for anything?

Are any of us safe from a false allegation or a wrongful conviction?

Will no-one genuinely try to put things right when they go wrong without making false promises and ultimately reinforcing the status quo?

How many more Brian Buckles, Henry Nowaks and Andrew Malkinsons do there have to be?

By Felicity Stryjak

Director, Falsely Accused Database

https://www.falselyaccuseddatabase.com/