Andrew Malkinson says he could have been spared “20 years of darkness and despair” if the jury system had not been changed to allow majority verdicts. Malkinson was exonerated of rape last summer, two decades after a jury wrongly convicted him by a majority of 10 to 2. In an interview to coincide with the launch of research on the role of majority verdicts on miscarriages of justice, he said that reintroducing jury unanimity was one of several reforms he wanted to campaign for as a result of his experience. The law was changed in 1967 to allow convictions when a jury is unable to reach a unanimous decision. The practice was overturned in the US for serious cases in 2020 because of the risk of miscarriages of justice. Malkinson said if the law had remained the same “then none of this horror that has befallen me would have taken place”. He said research from the legal charity Appeal showed that the legislation needed urgent review. “People shouldn’t be sent to prison for life on a majority verdict. That is insane. It should be absolutely unanimous or nothing at all, like it was for centuries before 1967.” Malkinson spent 17 years in prison and was only released in 2020 on good behaviour. He said that if the jury had been forced to agree “they would have said, ‘Well, we can’t reach a majority so you’re free to go, acquitted.’ That would have been far, far preferable to 17 years of hell.” Describing the conclusion of his trial at Manchester crown court in 2004, he said the jury was initially advised their decision would need to be unanimous, before the judge dropped his guidance to 11-1 and then 10-2. “They came back with all these questions and notes were passed. It seemed to take a long time – I think they were deliberating for more than nine hours,” he said. There was never any DNA connecting Malkinson to the crime and he was acquitted after forensic testing of key samples linked it to a man on the police database. The appeal court also overturned his case on the basis that the extensive criminal convictions of key witnesses were never disclosed. Malkinson said that the public would struggle to understand the experience of being a wrongly convicted sex offender. “On a major level they don’t because they see you there, you’re free. It’s all been sorted out. They don’t see those 20 years of darkness and despair … they don’t know the millionth of it. “It’s just horror. To be trapped in something like that, it feels like you’re buried under layers of concrete.” Malkinson’s mental health has continued to suffer while he awaits the findings of official inquiries into his case. “It’s like an extension of being imprisoned in a way, because there’s as yet no closure at all,” he said. A review of the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s handling of his case by Chris Henley KC was completed earlier this year but Malkinson has still not seen it. The final draft was given to the CCRC in April, although an earlier version is understood to have been on their desks since January. The chair of the CCRC, Helen Pitcher, offered an “unreserved apology” to Malkinson last month for its handling of his case but did not share the report. It is being checked by Greater Manchester police and the Crown Prosecution Service before publication. The CCRC said this was to ensure it would not jeopardise the prosecution of a suspect, but Malkinson does not understand why he is being prevented from seeing it. “Why am I being treated with disdain? It feels like disdain … I want to see it. I want to know why they refused me and what the process was when they came to that conclusion. Because it was obviously flawed.” Malkinson first applied to the CCRC in 2009 and was rejected twice before they referred his case to the court of appeal, meaning he spent more than another decade in jail. “You can infer from her apology to me that it’s not a very flattering report for them,” he said. Malkinson is a quiet man but since his exoneration he has been determined to stay true to a promise he made in prison to be a voice for justice reform. “I said to myself if I ever get out of this, if I get to prove my innocence – I could see no way forward at the time – I’m not going to shut my mouth. I’m going to shout from the rooftops,” he said. “I’m going to keep on advocating for change and reform, because it’s just not good enough.”