Mother sues ex-policeman in rape claim

Published on Saturday 13 December 2008 18:48

A FORMER policeman is facing a £100,000 claim for compensation by a woman he is accused of sexually abusing for more than two decades.

The 41-year-old mother-of-two – known only as 'A' to protect her anonymity – has been given permission by a judge to sue the former officer, claiming that she was first raped when she was seven and that the attacks went on for 22 years.

Lord McEwan ruled last week at the Court of Session that the three-year time-bar that applies to such cases should be lifted, observing: "In a case like this, it is quite proper for her to want to vindicate herself."

The former Strathclyde constable – known only as 'N' – was convicted in the criminal courts eight years ago but was released on appeal.

His alleged victim, in an exclusive interview with Scotland on Sunday, said: "I have seen him convicted and I have seen him get off on what I think was a technicality. I want to see him answer for what he did to me."

But last night lawyers for the former policeman, who is now a wealthy businessman in the west of Scotland, said he was innocent and would appeal Lord McEwan's decision to let the case go ahead.

The abuse is alleged to have started in 1975 when A, who has learning difficulties, shared a room in a Glasgow semi with the police officer and two other girls.

She said: "He ruined my life. I could have been a policewoman, the same as him. I never got that option because I was so disturbed after what he did to me.

"He was never violent. But I think he controlled me for years. He never really let me live my life.

"He would tell me 'I hope you are not doing this' or 'I hope you are not doing that'. He would want to know what I was doing if I was at the dancing.

"It was horrible, when I think back, the amount of control and power he had over me. I didn't feel he controlled me then. But I can see it now.

"I relied on him. I trusted him. It was easier to sleep with him than to say no. I had never said no. When do you say 'The No'? When you are 16? When you are 19? When you are 30?"

The abuse was finally reported to police by a relative when N allegedly pestered A for sex when she was pregnant with her partner's child.

The first trial against N was deserted in 1999. A second trial took place the following year and ended with him being found guilty and jailed for eight years.

The Court of Appeal ruled that N's conviction was unsafe because he had not been able to cross-examine one of his accusers, who was not able to testify in the second trial. "We were asked to retry him, to take him to the courts for a third time," said A. "I couldn't have done it. But I do want justice."

The woman's lawyer, Cameron Fyfe of Ross Harper solicitors in Glasgow, welcomed her legal breakthrough.

He said: "I am delighted for my client that Lord McEwan has used his discretion to overcome the time-bar problem and has allowed her a final hearing at which we shall attempt to prove the allegations of abuse and the damage it has caused to her psychological health."

Fyfe said the time had now come for the Scottish Parliament to change the law. He said: "It is ludicrous to expect an individual who has been damaged beyond repair by childhood abuse to raise a court action within the three-year time limit".

Lord McEwan in his judgment last week also called for a change in the law on time-bar. He said: "I have an uneasy feeling that the legislation, and the strict way the courts have interpreted it, has failed a generation of children who've been abused and whose attempts to seek a fair remedy have become mired in the legal system."

Last night N's agents, Balfour & Manson, said he would keep up his fight and would go back to court to try to reinstate the time-bar.

A spokeswoman for the firm said: "The defender maintains his denial of liability and is appealing the decision."