Father’s victory in court case tinged by tragedy
David de Freitas acted in the public interest when he made comments in media about ‘cry rape’ case, judge finds
A judge yesterday ruled in favour of a father sued for libel by a man accused by his daughter of rape. Eleanor de Freitas, pictured, killed herself in 2014 days before facing court herself on charges of making a false claim. The man she accused, Alexander Economou, then took her father, David, to court over articles in the media concerning the case that he said defamed him
ALL David de Freitas had wanted to do was voice his frustration at the legal system he felt had let down his only daughter before she killed herself.
Instead, he found himself being sued for libel by the shipping magnate’s son who was once accused of raping her.
Yesterday, in the first victory of its kind at the High Court, a judge accepted that Mr de Freitas thought he had been acting in the public interest, only to be pursued through the courts by Alexander Economou.
Mr Economou, a company secretary for a shipping agency, now faces a £1 million legal bill after Mr Justice Warby ruled against him in a case which he said had a “striking and tragic” background.
Mr de Freitas said he was delighted with the decision after a brutally fought court case that he said had prolonged his grief for his daughter.
Eleanor, 22, killed herself in April 2014, days before she faced court on suspicion of making a false rape claim. The trainee accountant, who suffered from bipolar disorder, had accused Mr Economou of rape in 2013, but no case was brought by the CPS.
Mr Economou then brought a £200,000 private prosecution against her, which was taken over by the CPS. She killed herself three days before the start of her trial on charges of perverting the course of justice.
Mr Economou, 37, sued Mr de Freitas, a financial planner, over publications in various media in November and December 2014 which, he claimed, referred to him and were the responsibility of the 60-year-old.
Mr Economou said he believed Mr de Freitas’s purpose was to “lash out” against him in public because he blamed him for his daughter’s death and wanted to take revenge. He said he was left close to a nervous breakdown and shunned.
But Mr de Freitas said he did not name Mr Economou and that his criticism was aimed at the role and conduct of the CPS and its decision to continue the prosecution of his daughter.
He said: “We did not want other women or their families to suffer as we and Eleanor had or for there to be a repeat of these tragic circumstances.”
In his ruling, the judge said: “Mr Economou has pursued this case with sincerity but, as I find, in anger and with elements of vengefulness.
“Defamatory imputations can cause injury to feelings which is out of all proportion to the harm they cause to reputation.”
He said Mr Economou “has made the error of seeing this case from his own perspective as a victim, paying too much attention to the impact on him and his feelings, and giving insufficient consideration to the other perspectives, indeed the other rights and interests, that demand and deserve consideration.”
Mr de Freitas said after the ruling: “My focus has been, and continues to be, the conduct and decision-making of the CPS.” The case was the first time in a libel action that the new public interest defence, under section 4 of the 2013 Defamation Act, was used.
Last month, Mr Economou was cleared at Westminster magistrates’ court of harassing Mr de Freitas. He was yesterday refused permission to appeal the libel ruling, but will reapply directly to the Court of Appeal.
He said: “I am very shocked by the outcome of this trial. The judge ruled that Mr de Freitas’s statements were seriously defamatory and caused me serious harm.
“We essentially proved our case but the judge ruled that his rights to free speech were more important than my vindication.
“Something is very wrong here. We are talking about a rape accusation. This is as serious as it gets.”