Detective loses libel case

The Evening Standard won a major libel case in the High Court today over the disastrous police investigation into false rape allegations against Neil and Christine Hamilton.

Detective Chief Inspector Christopher Miller, a senior officer in the inquiry, had sued Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Evening Standard and Daily Mail, over articles he claimed had been libellous and devastating to his reputation.

But today Mr Justice Eady ruled in favour of the newspaper group, leaving the Police Federation, which had backed Mr Miller, with a legal bill of more than ?1 million.

The way is now clear for the Hamiltons, who have already forced publicist Max Clifford into court over the sex lies, to sue the Met for false arrest.

They were arrested in a blaze of publicity in May 2001 after being falsely accused of gang rape by Nadine Milroy-Sloan. She was later jailed for three years for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

In September 2001 the Evening Standard published an article headlined "Yard admits it should not have arrested Hamilton" and the Daily Mail story was headed "Hamilton sex case shambles to cost public ?1 million".

Mr Miller, 47, now a superintendent in Hertfordshire Police, demanded damages from the newspapers for blaming him for the inquiry shambles and accusing him of neglecting his duty.

During a trial lasting almost a month, high-ranking past and present police officers, including Michael Todd, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, and Duncan Croll, formerly a Commander in the Met, were called to support the newspapers' case. The court also heard of Mr Miller's part in another rape investigation in October 1998, which ended with the case collapsing and the trial judge describing the investigation as "grossly incompetent".

Christine Hamilton told the court that Mr Miller's suggestion she and her husband had created the publicity about their arrest was "nonsense on stilts", which had added to their pain and distress.

The judge ruled that it had been "inappropriate" for the Hamiltons to have been arrested. He attacked a 2004 letter from Mr Miller's then solicitors Carter-Ruck, which blamed everything on the "publicity-seeking Hamiltons". He described this as an "extraordinary proposition" and "an error of judgment".

The judge concluded that Mr Miller "had a leading role and responsibility for the inquiry and was among those responsible for important failures which included delays, management failures and poor decision-making, and led to the Hamiltons being arrested when this should never have happened".

He added that Mr Miller had acted in good faith and was "by no means solely to blame".

"The [newspapers] have succeeded in proving that the defamatory allegat ions against Mr Miller were substantially true," he concluded.

Solicitor Liz Hartley, of Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, said: " The judge accepted the compelling evidence of our police witnesses from across the ranks, many of whom are members of the Police Federation." Harvey Kass, legal director of Associated Newspapers, said: "As the judge observed, this was a case of 'public importance' concerning 'the way in which sensitive allegations of rape were dealt with by the Met'. We are pleased that Mr Justice Eady had totally vindicated the newspapers' decision to fight this case."

In a statement Mr Miller apologised to the Hamiltons and the alleged victim in the 1998 inquiry "for the shortcomings for which the judge has found me responsible". He said that in the Milroy-Sloan investigation he had "strongly expressed the view that no action should be taken against Mr and Mrs Hamilton and that they should not be arrested" but "the judge however has found that I should have done more than I did in relation to each investigation".

Neil Hamilton said the couple were still considering suing the Metropolitan Police for wrongful arrest.

A spokeswoman for the Met said an internal inquiry had found "no misconduct issues" and "no officer will face disciplinary proceedings".