Edward Garnier KC labelled the miscarriage of justice in Andrew Malkinson’s case as “jawdropping”. Robert Buckland, another former solicitor general and previous justice secretary, said all relevant agencies have “some explaining to do”.

The Guardian’s report highlighted that by 2007, both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service were aware that another individual’s DNA was present on the victim’s clothing. The revelation came three years after Mr Malkinson’s wrongful conviction.

Yet, in 2012, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) decided against further forensic analysis or proposing an appeal. Documentation indicated the CCRC’s apprehensions regarding expenses.

Lord Garnier said on the Today programme: “I think the more one learns about this case … the more one is shocked about how Mr Malkinson was let down by the justice system. It seems to me that what we need now is complete and utter disclosure, public disclosure, of every document that relates to this case – save those which, if disclosed, would impede the prosecution of a new suspect – and there should be a public inquiry which should reach conclusions about what went wrong, who knew what and when, within a six-month period.”

Of the claims the CCRC’s seeming indifferent about the new evidence, he said: “The word ‘bystander’ or ‘spectator’ was going through my mind. What’s the point of the CCRC if, presented with questions which need answering and which they have the constitutional duty to investigate, they do nothing?

“It’s particularly distressing to hear that on grounds of cost they decided that this was not worth pursuing. Well, here we are now in 2023 … well over a decade since they were first involved in this matter, and the costs now are enormous. Not only have we had the cost to Mr Malkinson in every sense of the word but we are going to see him paid, justly, huge amounts of compensation.”

Mr Buckland said: “All agencies involved in this have some explaining to do, so we understand precisely what happened. Until we have that proper inquiry, I don’t think we’ll get to the bottom of what on earth went wrong in this case.”

James Burley, the investigator handling Malkinson’s case for the charity appeal, commented: “The CCRC’s internal comments show that in deciding not to commission any DNA testing, cost was at the forefront of their considerations. That decision may have saved the CCRC some money, but it came at a brutal cost for both Andy and the victim.”

Mr Malkinson himself said: “I feel an apology is the least I am owed, but it seems like the very body set up to address the system’s fallibility is labouring under the delusion that it is itself infallible. How many more people has it failed?”