Alleged Rapist Researched Wrongful Conviction Case Online Before DNA Match, Court Told
An alleged rapist, accused of carrying out an attack for which an innocent man spent 17 years in prison, searched the case online before being traced through a 'one in a billion' DNA match, Manchester Crown Court heard today. Andrew Malkinson was wrongly convicted of the 2003 attack on a motorway embankment in Salford, Greater Manchester, based on mistaken witness identification, and was finally freed from jail in 2020.
DNA Evidence and Arrest
It was not until 2022 that Paul Quinn, now 51, was arrested in Devon after his DNA was matched to samples taken from the victim's clothing at the time. His DNA had been on the national police database since 2012, jurors were informed. Quinn, who lived near the scene at the time of the attack and allegedly knew the area well, strenuously denies strangling and raping the woman, according to prosecutor John Price KC.
Internet Search History Revealed
Examination of Quinn's internet search history showed that he looked up an article about Mr Malkinson being jailed in 2019, a year before newspapers began covering the campaign to clear his name. He then Googled 'wrongly convicted cases uk'. In the following years, he searched for 'police searching you' on YouTube and used Google Maps to view the road where the attack occurred, despite living nearly 200 miles away in Exeter.
Prosecutor John Price argued that Quinn could have 'no earthly reason' for researching the case before his arrest if his claim to police that he is not the rapist is true. Instead, Price suggested Quinn was 'expecting the police to come calling' because he assumed his DNA would be traced.
Changes in Browsing Habits
Further news stories in July 2022, reporting that an unknown man had been linked to the rape through new DNA evidence, were followed by a 'very profound change' in Quinn's browsing habits, the court heard. His history dating back to 2017 revealed he rarely visited news websites, but in the months before his arrest, he conducted regular searches into DNA sampling.
Quinn knew his DNA was on the national database, having provided a sample in 2012. In August 2022, he searched for 'how long is DNA kept in database', and later looked up queries about sweating and police DNA retention policies.
Background of the Case
Andrew Malkinson was unrelenting in his efforts to clear his name, ultimately developing into a campaign that attracted significant publicity. He unsuccessfully appealed his conviction in 2006 and made failed attempts with the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2009 and 2019. A third application was granted in 2023, and his appeal was allowed later that year.
Jurors were told that Mr Malkinson was 'the victim of a most terrible miscarriage of justice, one of the worst there has been'. DNA testing at the time of his arrest was inconclusive, and no semen traces were found. He was convicted based on witness identification, including the victim.
New DNA Evidence Emerges
In 2007, new tests on saliva traces from the victim's vest top identified DNA from a male who was not Mr Malkinson. This matched a serious injury to her left nipple, which a pathologist concluded was from a bite. Despite this, Mr Malkinson spent another 13 years in prison before the profile was traced to Quinn in 2022, with the chances of it belonging to anyone else placed at less than one in 1 billion.
Quinn's Statements and Evidence
Interviewed by police, Quinn denied raping the woman but said he couldn't recall if they'd ever had sex. He admitted to being 'highly promiscuous' as a young man and sleeping with hundreds of women without using condoms. He also acknowledged that his route home passed the scene of the attack after nights out drinking and taking drugs.
Police spoke to Quinn's ex-wife, Catherine, who recalled that Quinn came home on the night of the attack without his shirt, which he often unbuttoned or removed while dancing. She told him, 'You better hope that they don't find your shirt anywhere near there.' She also noted he habitually shaved his chest hair every summer, leaving his torso 'completely bald', which matched witness descriptions of a hairless chest.
Witness Descriptions and Identification
The alarm was raised at around 5:30 am on July 19, 2003, by a dog walker who found the woman distressed and dazed. She described her assailant as olive-skinned, about 5ft 8in tall, and muscular, with scratches on his face. Police suspected Mr Malkinson, who lived 1.5 miles away, and the victim picked him out in an identification procedure, corroborated by two witnesses.
However, prosecutor John Price stated there is 'no alternative plausible explanation' for how Quinn's DNA came to be on her clothing other than he was the real attacker. Quinn's appearance at the time closely matched the description, and the location required prior knowledge of the area.
Ongoing Trial
Quinn's defence may invite jurors to consider if Mr Malkinson was the true assailant, but the case against Quinn lacks witness identification evidence, avoiding the weaknesses that led to the wrongful conviction. In a prepared statement, Quinn told police he could not explain the DNA evidence or remember if he had slept with the victim.
Price submitted that the truth is simple: Quinn carried out the rape. Quinn, of Exeter, Devon, denies two counts of rape, causing GBH, and attempting to choke or strangle with intent to commit an offence. The trial continues.
