Former magistrate cleared of rape but facing bankruptcy - Telegraph

Mr Hunt, from Blandford St Mary in Dorset, launched an appeal with fresh evidence to back up his claim that, after he had been on duty at the Fordingbridge country show, the woman had invited him into her home for a cup of tea and consented to sex.

New witnesses said that his accuser had been content to be in his company after the supposed "rape" and did not even change her shifts to avoid working with him. The appeal court in London also found that the trial judge had misdirected the jury.

After two years behind bars, his conviction was quashed and he was a free man, innocent in the eyes of the law.

But his ordeal was far from over. When he applied to the Home Office for compensation for the two years he had spent in jail, his claim was rejected, in June 2006, because he had not proved "beyond reasonable doubt" that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

Determined to make clear his innocence, he launched a legal case for malicious prosecution against the woman he believed had concocted the allegations against him, the "victim", named only as AB.

Mr Hunt, who was sacked from his job after his conviction and has not worked since, had to remortgage the family home, use savings and take out loans to fund his legal battle, which was based on a 1995 House of Lords ruling.

But in October 2009, to his dismay, the case was thrown out by three civil appeal judges who ruled that AB was not the "prosecutor" and therefore could not be sued for malicious prosecution. "I was devastated," Mr Hunt said.

Lord Justice Sedley, sitting with Lords Justice Wall and Moore-Bick, said the prosecution was the responsibility of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

There was more bad news to come and today, at the age of 69, Mr Hunt – and his wife Lynn, and their 35-year-old son Paul, who have stuck by him throughout – are mired in a legal nightmare that has brought the family to the brink of financial ruin.

Hogan Lovells, the international law firm that acted for AB, is seeking nearly £500,000 costs from Mr Hunt including £80,000 AB spent on lawyers from other firms before Lovells took up the civil case.

The law firm had initially acted pro bono – free of charge – but after four months, in June 2008, switched to a "conditional fee arrangement" (CFA). This meant that although no fees would be charged to Mrs AB it could claim back its fees from Mr Hunt if he lost the case. The fees claimed would exclude the work carried out before the CFA came into effect.

The firm was voted runner-up for the 2010 Wig and Pen prize, awarded by London law societies, for its pro bono work on the Hunt case.

A spokesman for the firm said any money recovered from Mr Hunt would be given to AB to cover costs she incurred with her original lawyers, and any money due to the firm would be given to charity – although he declined to say which charity ahead of the hearing.

Mr Hunt is contesting their claim for the costs which will be decided at a hearing at Cliffords Inn in London this week (June 9/10).

He said: "I feel disgusted. It is scandalous that Lovells can change their mind.

"I spent two years in prison as an innocent man and now they are seeking over £400,000 and trying to bankrupt me.

"I have felt suicidal at times. We are all at our wit's end."

Mr Hunt's solicitor, Stephen Taylor, of Buckinghamshire-based law firm Coyle, White Devine. said: "Mr Hunt is an innocent man who has been living in a nightmare for the past nine years."

The case has also sparked a political controversy. Questions are being asked about the role of Vera Baird, the solicitor general in the then Labour government, and a supporter of AB.

Mrs Baird said the ruling against Mr Hunt in the malicious prosecution case was "good news for the courageous Mrs AB, for women and for the criminal justice system" because it would encourage women to come forward without fear of being sued for damages if the alleged attacker was eventually acquitted.

The verdict also means that if a man is wrongly accused of rape by a woman, he can bring a case to a civil court only if he can prove beyond reasonable doubt that she perjured herself in a criminal case.

In a Radio 4 interview in November 2008, defending anonymity for complainants in rape cases, Mrs Baird said: "The point ... is to avoid the shame, the guilt of having to expose that she had been treated in this way and having to be challenged about whether she consented or not."

Robert Walter, the Conservative MP for North Dorset, who is backing Mr Hunt, said he would ask Dominic Grieve, the current Attorney General, to investigate Mrs Baird's role and examine whether she had in any way abused her position by allegedly asking Lovells to take up AB's case.

Mr Walter said the law firm should not pursue Mr Hunt for costs "since they were doing the work pro bono and he was acquitted in the criminal case. He also had a strong civil case, including fresh evidence that was ruled to be inadmissible by the judge."

Lord Newby, a Liberal Democrat peer, wrote to the law firm asking them to drop the action – but it refused.

He wrote: "If you were successful ... you would not only effectively bankrupt Mr Hunt – an innocent man – but would be doing so on the basis of what appears to be a cynical and unethical approach to business."

Another extraordinary aspect of the case is that both parties were initially reluctant to take action against each other. AB did not come forward with her rape allegation until she was contacted by detectives seven years after the incident, following the complaint to police by her friend who was being investigated by Mr Hunt over expenses and sick pay claims.

In another twist, following a complaint from Mr Hunt, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has asked Hampshire police to investigate an allegation that a prosecution witness in the original trial committed perjury.

The CPS has also been asked to investigate claims that it withheld crucial evidence from the first trial in 2003 that did not come to light until 2008.

* Last month it was revealed that Christopher Grierson, 59, a partner at Hogan Lovells, was sacked following an investigation by the firm into £1 million false expenses claims made over four years. He also faces investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.