Another day in court for the couple who can't help slipping on banana skin

So, Mrs Christine Hamilton is not a banana

So, Mrs Christine Hamilton is not a banana. That was the curious phrase the wife of the former Conservative trade minister, Mr Neil Hamilton, used when she publicly and repeatedly denied allegations that the couple had sexually assaulted a woman while she was being raped at a flat in east London in May.

Never a shy and retiring type, Mrs Hamilton walked into, and her critics would say created, a media circus with all the eloquent bravado that has become her trademark. "I said when we were arrested that if they brought charges then I was a banana, and I am not a banana, so I never really expected them to go on with this," she told the media this week as Scotland Yard dropped the investigation into sexual assault claims by Ms Nadine Milroy-Sloan.

But for all the mud-slinging and both sides selling their stories to the press, the police investigation into Ms Milroy-Sloan's allegation of rape continues and the whole episode has raised important questions about the police, public figures and the media.

Over the past four months, the Metropolitan Police devoted enormous energy to investigating Ms Milroy-Sloan's allegations. The trainee lecturer and mother of four had gone to the publicist Mr Max Clifford for advice soon after the alleged incident on May 5th, and instead of immediately negotiating a fee with the newspapers he advised her to go to the police. Nearly three months later, on August 10th, apparently after several invitations from the police to attend an interview, the Hamiltons turned up at Barkingside police station with a BBC crew in tow.

READ MORE

It was at that point that the investigation took a bizarre twist. Rather than leave the police station by a back door or offer the traditional "no comment" to the waiting media, the Hamiltons and their solicitor decided to embrace the press and give a detailed description of the allegations against them. It was an unprecedented move that was prompted, the Hamiltons said, by their desire to defend themselves and ensure they got their side of the story across. A few days later, the Mail on Sunday published a transcript of their police interview. And in another unusual step, Ms Milroy-Sloan waived her right to anonymity and allowed her name and photograph to be used by the media as she tried to defend herself against critics, including members of her family, that she had made the whole thing up.

Mr Hamilton accused her of playing a "high risk" game, but by this time the Hamiltons were also facing criticism by police sources that far from co-operating in the early stages of the investigation they had declined several calls to attend formal interviews.

It soon looked as if Mr Hamilton, disgraced by the "cash for questions" affair and his relationship with the Harrods boss, Mr Mohamed Al Fayed, would be back in court again, this time suing Ms Milroy-Sloan for libel and bringing a possible case for wrongful arrest against the police. The Hamiltons' defiance appeared justified when witnesses came forward to say they had been with the couple at Claridges Hotel and later at their west London flat on the day of the alleged assault, which took place 10 miles across the city in Ilford. Mrs Hamilton's mobile telephone records also placed her on Brompton Road in Chelsea at the time of the alleged attack.

More than two weeks after their arrest, the Hamiltons learnt that the police had found no evidence to support the allegations and the investigation was dropped. The decision opened the floodgates of criticism against the police, with the Hamiltons declaring the decision to interview them was "scandalous" and the police insisting they had a duty to investigate all allegations of serious sexual assault.

Whatever the outcome of the libel action which began yesterday and other threatened legal action, many observers have questioned what the long-term impact on public confidence will be when a newspaper publishes a transcript of a police interview during a live investigation. But who leaked the transcript - was it the Hamiltons or the police? The Hamiltons decided to "go public" with details of the allegations, but should they have been stopped? And if the media was able to raise serious doubts about the case within 24 hours, why did it take the police so long to clear the Hamiltons? The Hamiltons are back in court again, and the future for this high-profile couple and Ms Milroy-Sloan remains uncertain.

rdonnelly@irish-times.ie