A Newcastle pharmacist, Mr Martin Garfoot, is seeking damages for defamation from a colleague, also a pharmacist, who, he says, falsely accused him of harassment and rape at work.
Mr Garfoot launched his action in the High Court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on January 28. The woman, who cannot be named under the terms of the Sexual Offences Amendment Act 1992, made her allegations in two written statements to senior managers of the multiple pharmacy company for which they both work.
For Mr Garfoot, Mr Edward Garnier, QC, told the court that at no time had the woman reported the alleged rape or any other kind of sexual assault to the police or to her general medical practitioner and that it was months before she made a complaint to managers at work. He said that in the days following the allegation, video recordings showed her at ease and untroubled as she worked alongside or near to Mr Garfoot. She had also travelled to meetings alone with Mr Garfoot, given him a present when he had been ill and had telephoned him to discuss work-related matters.
"My client claims his reputation has been severely damaged by the untrue and hurtful allegations made by the defendant to other people," Mr Garnier told the jury.
The court was told that Mr Garfoot and the woman had initially got on well together, but that a personality clash had developed as time went by. On one occasion she had accused him of throwing water over her.
Mr Garnier said that the woman had alleged that Mr Garfoot had pinned her to the tearoom floor at work in January, 1996, and raped her. Four days after the alleged attack she had gone to her doctor but made no mention of the matter. She had then waited until November before saying anything to managers at work.
"Mr Garfoot wants justice and he wants to leave this court with a suitable substantial award which will demonstrate to the world, to his colleagues at work, to his neighbours and, above all to his family, that he is not a rapist or a sex criminal, that he did not attack this woman, that he is a fit and proper member of his work and home community and that in late 1996 and early 1997 he was done a terrible wrong," the jury was told.