An Oxford man falsely accused of rape and wrongly jailed for six months has been awarded £30,000 by the Home Office, following an Oxford Mail investigation.

The 31-year-old, his wife and their six children, who do not wish to be named, were ecstatic when they received the letter confirming the pay-out.

But the couple, known here as "Nigel and Wendy", say the cash can never make up for their horrific ordeal.

"People seem to think the money makes everything OK, but it can't change what we all went through and what the kids went without," said 28-year-old Wendy.

"My husband will never fully recover and is a shadow of his former self. All he wants is to find out why he was accused by the 'victim' in the first place, but the police won't open the case until there is further evidence of perjury." The couple, from Blackbird Leys, have spent a year campaigning for compensation after the Oxford Mail exposed the injustice in August last year.

And they are pleased the tables have finally been turned after years of ill-treatment by the justice system.

"We are going to try to make up for all the things the kids had to go without while Nigel was awaiting trial and then after he was imprisoned. It will be a happier Christmas and it's nice to know we have finally got some security and something to rely on.

"But it has been a long, hard fight and we have had to really push for any compensation by faxing and phoning the Home Office continuously. It has certainly not been easy," Wendy said.

The nightmare began for Nigel on December 11 1995, when police knocked on his door and arrested him on five counts of common and indecent assault of a family friend between 1978 and 1995.

He was charged and bailed over Christmas and had to wait a full year for his case to come to court, by which time he was so stressed he had to give up his taxi-driving job. When he did appear in court, despite contradictory evidence, and the judge calling the victim a liar, he was convicted, sentenced to four years and sent to Woodhill Prison in Milton Keynes.

"Prison was a nightmare from start to finish," he said. As is the fate of many rapists, he was hounded in prison and grew suicidal. He was put on a special watch and eventually decided it would be safer to transfer to the notorious Rule 43 wing for 'vulnerable' prisoners such as paedophiles and murderers.

His depression grew deeper and eventually he was admitted to a hospital ward.

Meanwhile, Wendy was growing increasingly alarmed about her husband's state.

She was left alone to give birth to their sixth child, and bring up their family single-handed. Their mortgage fell into arrears and the family sank into poverty, using up precious money to visit him in prison.

"I was just so worried about him in there. I felt so helpless and sent him money whenever I could. But it was hard to rouse him when he was so down," said Wendy.

But she never gave up and knew his innocence would one day come to light. When his appeal was upheld six months into his sentence, the couple were delighted.

But despite being freed Nigel never fully recovered from his ordeal and still wakes screaming in the night. He even had to turn down his former employer's offer of his old job back.

"It took me a long time to be able to be in a room or car with another female, apart from my wife," he said.

And, when he did get a night-shift job he had to reveal his criminal record to his boss.

Yet his victim is still "free". Why did she accuse him in the first place? I've asked myself that a million times and the only thing I can come up with is that she was jealous. I had a wife, a family, a job, a house and a car.

"We were going somewhere and I was happy," he said.

Supt Cressida Dick, Oxford Area Commander, said: "Thames Valley Police treated his allegation of perjury against the woman extremely seriously. A thorough investigation was carried out which included interviewing everyone concerned and investigating thoroughly court transcripts.

"A file was submitted to the CPS who decided in February of this year there was insufficient evidence for the case to proceed."

Despite the flaws and alibis the case came down to two incidents where it was her word against his.

The judge pointed out there was an "extraordinary divergence" between what she told the police and what she told the jury, adding: "If what she has told you is true, then what she told the police cannot be. Either way she has lied." He went on: "There is no independent evidence providing any support for the allegations, and such independent evidence as there was tended to provide a measure of support for his denials.

"This case is full of contradictions."

It took the jury seven hours to reach a verdict of 'guilty', by a majority verdict of ten to two, on two incidents that allegedly happened 14 years earlier.

The judge had no choice but to sentence Nigel to four years, although he urged him to appeal.

Six months later the appeal judge threw the case out because "the evidence of the complainant was riddled with inconsistencies." Before concluding that the convictions were unsafe, the judge said: "The issue is stark - one or the other is lying.".

The ultimate irony is that, because the police have so far not charged the alleged victim with perjury, she cannot be identified.

Story date: Friday 19 November

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.