Man accused of 2003 rape tells court he ‘wouldn’t be able to live with himself’ if he had done it

A man accused of a 2003 rape for which an innocent person spent 17 years in jail has told a court he “wouldn’t be able to live with myself” if he had carried out the attack.Paul Quinn, 51, denies raping the woman, in a case that led to what jurors heard was a “most terrible” miscarriage of justice.Andrew Malkinson, 60, had his rape conviction quashed in 2023 after fresh DNA analysis linked a new suspect to the offence, the court was told.Giving evidence at Manchester-crown-court" class="entity-link entity-organization" data-entity-id="70379" data-entity-type="organization">Manchester crown court on Friday, Quinn denied he repeatedly looked up Malkinson’s case to check for updates in the nearly 20 years between the attack and his arrest in December 2022.He said it was a “complete coincidence” that he had carried out several online searches about DNA evidence shortly after it emerged that police had identified a new suspect in July 2022.Jurors have been told that Quinn gave a DNA sample to police in 2012, a decade before his arrest.Quinn denied there was a “sudden change” in his internet habits shortly after The Guardian revealed in July 2022 that fresh DNA analysis had identified a new suspect in the 2003 rape.In August 2022, Quinn looked up “how long is DNA kept in database,” “DNA matches from skin” and “DNA matches from scene”.Speaking from the witness box, Quinn told jurors his online searches were “just a general inquisitiveness” and that: “We used to watch a lot of crime programmes and one of them probably was DNA and that prompted the question.”John Price KC, prosecuting, said the “exponential” rise in Quinn’s visits to the Manchester-evening-news" class="entity-link entity-organization" data-entity-id="29579" data-entity-type="organization">Manchester Evening News website suggested he was checking for updates on the case, which Quinn denied.Price asked the defendant whether it was “simply a coincidence” that he carried out several searches about how long his DNA would be stored by police, shortly after the news that officers had made a breakthrough. “That’s a complete coincidence,” said Quinn.The prosecutor then said: “It looks as though you were interested in finding out something about the transfer of DNA from touching skin. Am I right?”Quinn said: “That’s what it looks like but that’s not the reason – it’s just general inquisitiveness. It was probably something I’d read on a previous link that prompted that question.”The jury heard that while Quinn was searching for information about DNA he also looked up “why am I sweating so much all of a sudden” and “why am I sweating so much all day long”.Quinn denied he was feeling “anxious” or “worried” about the police finally linking him to the attack.The defendant admitted being unfaithful to his wife “hundreds of times” over a 16-year period on nights out, when he said he would have unprotected sex with women he met. Quinn suggested this may explain why his DNA was found on the victim’s vest and bra.He told jurors he was ashamed of his behaviour, despite telling police he was “bloody lucky” never to have caught a sexually transmitted infection from his extramarital activities.Asked whether he would have also felt regret if he had raped a woman, Quinn said: “If I’d committed this offence I don’t think I’d been able to live with myself”.Price said: “You were able to live with the way you treated your wife weren’t you?”The defendant said: “Completely different context.”Quinn denied he felt “relieved” that he had “got away with it” and, when asked whether he started to sweat when he learned of the police DNA breakthrough, said: “I learned of the new DNA [but] I’ve always been a warm-blooded person.”Price said: “Coming home from a night out, you attacked her. You took her down to the embankment where you bit her, you raped her twice and, while she was unconscious, you hit her in the face. That is why your DNA was on the vest top. That is the truth of it, isn’t it?”Quinn said: “No, it’s not at all.”The trial continues.