Andrew Malkinson accuser ‘wasn’t too sure it was the right man’, court told

A woman who alleged she was raped by Andrew Malkinson admitted to police 22 years ago that she “wasn’t too sure it was the right man”, a court has heard.Malkinson spent 17 years in prison for an attack he did not commit in what jurors heard was a “most terrible” miscarriage of justice. Paul Quinn is now on trial at Manchester crown court accused of the 2003 rape after fresh DNA tests allegedly linked him to the victim.Quinn’s barrister, Lisa Wilding KC, said the complainant had told Malkinson’s trial in 2004 that she was “more than 100% sure” that he was the attacker. “At no stage after that day in 2004 did you go to the police and say I’ve got that wrong,” the barrister said.The witness replied: “I did,” adding: “I can’t remember which one it was. At one of the trials I remember telling one of them that I wasn’t too sure it was the right man and they said: ‘Don’t worry, it’s just trial nerves, it will all be OK.’ I remember telling this to Helen, the detective.”The woman, who cannot be identified, told jurors she repeated these doubts to her husband “but he kept saying: ‘No, we got the right person.’”New DNA tests had identified saliva from another man on her vest, the jury was told. The court heard that Malkinson, 60, who was finally released from prison in December 2020, was identified by the woman in a digital ID parade three days after the alleged attack.Occasionally dabbing away tears with a tissue, the woman said she had given police a description of the man over the following hours but that it had been dark at the time of the incident.Paul Quinn is on trial accused of the 2003 rape after DNA tests allegedly linked him to the victim. Photograph: FacebookAsked by Wilding whether she thought twice about giving a description of the attacker given that it was dark, the woman replied: “I didn’t think straight because I was traumatised.” She added: “I did have a face but it wasn’t clear because it was dark. I gave them the best possible one I could.”The woman went on: “I was very naive. I listened to what police said and I was scared coming into the courtroom, I just went with what people told me to do and I was reassured it was fine. It was the right man. I said I wasn’t sure it was the right man and they said it’s fine, it was ‘trial nerves’, a lot of people think this and it was fine.”The witness told the court it was a police officer who said this to her. “I was reassured that it’s all right … and that the process of the court … it’s not just my identification [of the accused] – it’s the other things, the other evidence which tell whether he was guilty or not.”Wilding asked: “Are you saying that you knew you had got the wrong identification but you told the jury you got the right one?”The witness replied: “No, I said I was unsure because I’d not seen the other gentleman [Malkinson] with glasses on so it threw me a bit when I saw him in court. I said I was unsure and he said it was just nerves.” She added that she was “reassured that it’s normal to have second thoughts”.John Price KC, prosecuting, has said the identifications of Malkinson were “honestly and genuinely made” mistakes.Price said scientists now believed Quinn, 51, was “more than 1bn times” more likely to be the source of crucial DNA found on the victim than anyone else.Quinn, from Exeter, denies two counts of rape, one count of attempt to strangle and one count of assault intending to cause grievous bodily harm.The trial continues.