Friday, 23 November 2018

Metropolitan Police pay me £10,000 in general damages.

The Metropolitan Police have paid me £10,000 in compensation [see consent order below] with regards to the very serious misconduct of Detective Inspector Julian King and Detective Constable Phil Dial in which they:

- Both refused to watch CCTV evidence I provided them with, and never looked at text messages that showed Eleanor de Freitas had lied.

- Both knew that Eleanor de Freitas had a history of making false rape complaints, but let her get away with it.

- Detective Inspector King also breached the data protection act releasing my confidential information  to the de Freitas family without my consent.

Last year, the Daily Mail briefly reported the Police Misconduct. Click here to see the article. The officers are still under investigation by the IPCC and are facing a misconduct hearing at some point in the future. The outcome of that investigation is not yet known and that procedure is separate from my case against the police. Both officers were unavailable for comment, but have previously denied the allegations made against them and continue to do so.

As well as receiving compensation from the police, it is possible that the officers will face disciplinary action if they are found guilty.

Watch this space.


Wednesday, 21 November 2018

Court of Appeal Judgement (Alexander Economou v David de Freitas)

PRESS STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER ECONOMOU ON TODAYS COURT OF APPEAL DECISION 21/11/2018

==START==

Four years ago David de Freitas made a series of defamatory allegations in the national press implying I had raped his daughter. At the time my family received death threats and my life was turned upside down [see here] .

I asked him to stop and threatened legal action [see here] but Mr de Freitas continued to repeat his allegations. It was after the fifth defamatory statement that I commenced legal proceedings.

Several months later his lawyers stated that he would continue going to the press and that nothing could prevent him from repeating the 'words complained of' [see here].

I had two choices: Do nothing and be labelled a rapist for the rest of my life, or go to court, clear my name and get an injunction preventing repetition.

A trial date was set for June 2016. Three months before trial I made a 'without prejudice' offer asking for nominal damages of £1 and 25% of my legal costs to settle the case, on condition Mr de Freitas accepted liability. All I ever wanted was to clear my name. [see here]

I never received any response to my settlement offer and the trial went ahead. The judge accepted that David de Freitas had caused serious harm to my reputation but ruled that his free speech rights were more important and gave him a special immunity known as the 'public interest defence'. My defamation claim was dismissed.

I appealed the judgement and today, after a further two years of legal battles, the court of appeal dismissed my claim.

I am incredibly disappointed. In a nutshell this judgement says that it was perfectly legal for Mr de Freitas to wrongly accuse me of raping his daughter, on five separate occasions and in the face of evidence which showed I was innocent. Mr de Freitas never advanced a defence of truth or honest opinion.

This is the first time the 'public interest defence' has been successfully deployed. It is not without controversy because it allows the innocent to be wrongly accused, whilst the accuser is given complete immunity.

To see the legal reasons why I think this judgement is wrong click here.

==END=