The body responsible for investigating miscarriages of justice has opened a review into its handling of the Andrew Malkinson case after it twice refused to refer it to the court of appeal. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) said its chair, Helen Pitcher, met the lord chancellor on Wednesday to discuss the case. Malkinson, 57, spent 17 years in prison for a 2003 stranger rape in Greater Manchester that he did not commit. He was cleared by the court of appeal last month having spent years trying to convince the authorities that he was innocent after fresh DNA testing had linked another man to the crime. The CCRC made the announcement after the Guardian revealed on Wednesday that another man’s DNA was discovered on the victim’s clothing in 2007. Despite this, the CCRC twice declined to order further forensic scientific testing or refer the case for appeal, meaning he stayed in prison for another 13 years. The CCRC said the review would look at the decisions and actions taken in relation to Malkinson’s applications to the body and will be led by a king’s counsel from outside the organisation, with experience of prosecution and defence. Reacting to the announcement, Malkinson called on Alex Chalk, the lord chancellor and justice minister, to open a broader public inquiry into his case. “In addition to standalone investigations by separate bodies, there is need for a statutory public inquiry into the role of all state agencies in my case,” he said. “This inquiry needs the power to compel disclosure, so that I can finally understand what went so wrong. “I call on Alex Chalk to establish a public inquiry into the Criminal Cases Review Commission, Greater Manchester police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and their respective roles in my wrongful conviction as well as why it took so many years to overturn it.” Malkinson has called on Pitcher to resign and apologise over the commission’s handling of his case but she has so far issued no apology nor spoken in public about it. A petition calling for an apology and an independent review of the CCRC’s handling of the case gained more than 140,000 signatures. Emily Bolton, Malkinson’s solicitor and director of the charity Appeal, said: “Andy has been calling for an external, independent review of the CCRC’s handling of his case since his conviction was overturned. “We are pleased that Andy’s request for an independent review has been heard. Andy and his representatives should be invited to meet with the leader of the review at the outset and give input into the terms of reference. “However, the CCRC’s announcement comes without any apology from that body’s chair, Helen Pitcher. She has failed to take responsibility for the years of missed opportunities to correct this miscarriage of justice. “If she is waiting for the outcome of an independent review, which could take many months to complete, it is clear she does not recognise the very obvious failings in this case.” Pitcher did not comment on the announcement herself. A CCRC spokesperson said: “A review into the decisions taken in Mr Malkinson’s case couldn’t be started until we had the judgment from the court of appeal, but we have long recognised that it would be important to have one. “We will be as open as we can be within our statutory constraints with the findings of the completed review and the lessons to be learned. “This is a complex case in which many elements have informed the decisions taken. We recognise that Mr Malkinson has had a very long journey to clear his name, and it is plainly wrong that he spent 17 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. “We have already been in touch with Greater Manchester police and with the Crown Prosecution Service to offer our assistance in any of their inquiries.” The case log for Malkinson’s first application to the CCRC in 2009 showed that concerns about costs were raised multiple times when considering whether or not to undertake further forensic scientific testing following the discovery of another man’s DNA in a “crime specific” location on the victim’s vest top. Malkinson was initially convicted in 2004 purely on the basis of witness evidence and the prosecution argued he left no DNA because he was “forensically aware”.