Bowyer prepares Euro court case

Lee Bowyer, the Leeds United footballer cleared of attacking an Asian student, is ready to fight for his legal costs at the European Court of Human Rights.

Bowyer was cleared of grievous bodily harm and affray at Hull Crown Court in December but was ordered to pay his full £1 million costs by the trial judge because he had lied to the police.

He was forced to pay his share of two trials even though the first one was halted when the Sunday Mirror printed an interview with the victim's father, resulting in a retrial.

Bowyer's legal team has consulted human rights expert Ben Emmerson QC and is also considering making legal history by suing the newspaper for its misreporting of the case which doubled the costs.

A legal representative will be in the High Court on Thursday when the Attorney General starts proceedings against the newspaper.

But it could prove expensive for the millionaire footballer as student Sarfraz Najeib has started a £50,000 civil action against him alleging assault, battery, conspiracy to injure and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Bowyer's solicitor Stephen Barker described the cost order made by Mr Justice Henriques as "unwarranted, unnecessary, unfair and unreasonable".

"Unfortunately a judge's ruling is unappealable and that is another matter we are considering for the European Court as well as the justice of the decision itself," he said.

"I am instructed to look at the possibility of suing the Sunday Mirror and going to Europe, and we will if we have to.

"Suing a newspaper for the costs of a retrial is unprecedented and we would have to establish a new tort. It is fascinating stuff."

Mr Barker has been in contact with both the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Attorney General's office about a possible ex-gratia payment towards Bowyer's costs.

"If the High Court judge fines the newspaper for contempt, the state is unjustly enriching itself. The fact that Bowyer suffered a second trial at the hands of the Sunday Mirror is unanswerable," he said.

"But both departments said no to me on the grounds that there is no legal authority for such a proposition. But it is a chicken-and-egg situation: because there is no precedent they won't pay, but we say that they should."

Mr Barker also attacked Mr Najeib for deliberat e ly announcing his writ against Bowyer alone on the eve of the England team being picked to play Paraguay tomorrow.

Many England supporters expected Sven-Goran Eriksson to call up Bowyer, particularly after the injury to captain David Beckham.

Mr Barker said: "There can be no doubt whatsoever that they did that to cause maximum embarrassment, knowing that the squad would be announced the next day.

"Why not name the other defendants in the trial? Why do this 27 months after the assault and four months since the trial verdict? They haven't issued a statement of claim, nor served anything on us, just lodged the papers at the High Court against Bowyer alone.

"Hasn't anybody considered that the jury at Hull Crown Court could have rejected the Asians' version of events? There was a great deal of evidence that was inconsistent with their version."

Mr Barker said that Mr Najeib could have gone straight to the Criminal Injury Compensation Board for damages as Paul Clifford was sentenced to six years imprisonment for GBH and affray in the trial.

"Too much public money has already gone into the two trials which ended with the unanimous acquittal of Lee Bowyer. If you had a poll, I'm sure most people would say they don't want another hearing at public expense," he added.

In announcing their writ Suresh Grover, a spokesman for the Najeib family, said Bowyer had been singled out for legal reasons and a similar claim was intended to be made against his Leeds United team mate Jonathan Woodgate, who had been convicted of affray but cleared of GBH.

"Sarfraz and his brother are determined to see justice and feel that it would be better than giving up and trying to forget about what happened," he said.

Under a civil action the case against Bowyer would only have to be proved on a balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.