Mr Malkinson appealed twice to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) but his approaches were turned down.

The 57-year-old's conviction was eventually overturned by the Court of Appeal last month.

His prison term was "plainly wrong", the CCRC said, while it had "long recognised" that a review of the case was "important".

But that process could not begin until the Court of Appeal had made its judgment, it added.

A spokesman said the commission would be as "open as we can be within our statutory constraints" about "lessons to be learned".

He added: "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 [CPS] to offer our assistance in any of their inquiries."

Read more:
Unfair for wrongfully convicted inmates to pay back prison board and lodging costs, Rishi Sunak says

Case files obtained by Mr Malkinson and seen by Sky News show prosecutors knew in 2007 that forensic testing had identified a searchable male DNA profile on the rape victim's top that did not match his.

The documents show DNA in saliva, from an unidentified male, was found on the victim's vest near a bite wound her attacker inflicted.

A CPS caseworker said: "If it is assumed that the saliva came from the offender, then it does not derive from Malkinson.

"This is surprising because the area of the clothing that the saliva was recovered from was crime specific."

Lord Edward Garnier KC, a former solicitor general, has called for a public inquiry into the handling of the case, saying it needs to report within six months and be led by someone of "considerable stature and independence".

A CPS spokesperson said previously: "It is clear Mr Malkinson was wrongly convicted of this crime and we share the deep regret that this happened.

"Evidence of a new DNA profile found on the victim's clothing in 2007 was not ignored. It was disclosed to the defence team representing Mr Malkinson for their consideration.

"In addition, searches of the DNA databases were conducted to identify any other possible suspects. At that time there were no matches and therefore no further investigation could be carried out."