KATHERINE MacALISTER finds out how Les and his family are trying to rebuild their lives and uncovers the facts of the case that put an innocent man behind bars Kath admits Les is a shadow of his former self as they sit in their Oxford home, together again at last.

She never doubted for a moment that the accusations against him were made up when the police knocked on the door in December, 1995.

"When I heard the charges I was amazed. She had painted such an unrealistic picture of him, making him out to be a monster, and I knew it wasn't him," she recalled.

Les was charged and then bailed over Christmas. It took a year for his trial to come to court and he became so stressed he couldn't work. When it did finally reach court, all belief in the British justice system to determine innocence from guilt evaporated as he was convicted of rape. He was sent to start his sentence at Woodhill Prison in Milton Keynes.

Now he says simply: "Prison was a nightmare from start to finish."

He didn't tell anyone what he was in for, but was so depressed he was put on special watch. One day he told his cellmate his story and before long the whole prison knew about it.

"Friends I made there protected me because rapists are not welcome on normal wings. But after serious threats, I decided to move to Rule 43."

The notorious Rule 43 is for "vulnerable" prisoners such as paedophiles and murderers. But although he escaped physically unscathed, in his mind he sank deeper and deeper into depression.

"At one point I was put in the hospital ward because I was so low and there were loads of people in there who had tried to commit suicide because there were so many lifers.

"I had lost everything I had already so there was nothing to be scared of. They couldn't hurt me anymore." Even inside, Les said, the prison officers couldn't believe he had been sent down on the evidence against him, and he was offered advice and books on how to win his appeal.

Meanwhile, Kath was struggling to look after the kids alone at home. She visited him in prison, using up precious money on train fares. Their mortgage went into arrears, but she coped.

She said: "I was just worried about him in there. I felt so helpless. I sent him money when I could but he was so down.

She told him she would wait the full four years if she had to, but Les was watching men being dumped by their wives and girlfriends every day in prison, and feared his might do the same. It was the bleakest time in his life.

When the appeal was upheld, Les was immediately released. But his life will never be the same again. He still gets nightmares and wakes screaming in the night.

He gave up his job as a taxi driver, although his employers did offer him his job back. "It took me a long time to be able to be in a room or car with a female, apart from my wife," he said.

"Don't get me wrong. I know there are rapists out there - real ones - because I have met them. But some of them aren't being convicted while innocent men like me are.

"I've heard people say there's no smoke without fire, but who's fuelling the fire? She is."

And although he has managed to find another job, by law he had to reveal his criminal record to his boss. Luckily, the man listened to his story and told him: "That could have happened to any of us."

But one question remains unanswered for Les: why did his "victim" accuse him of rape in the first place?

"I've asked myself that question a million times," he said. "The only thing I can come up with is that she was jealous. I had a wonderful wife and family, a car, a job, a house. We were going somewhere and I was happy." For Les, the greatest injustice is that she continues to lead a free life.

As Kath points out: "After everything that's happened to us, she is still walking about free as a bird. Where's the justice in that?" Road to a wrongful conviction THE supposed victim accused Les of five counts of common and indecent assault between 1978 and 1995, and later of intimidating a witness in the case - the woman herself - and dangerous driving.

The victim said she was:

ATTACKED in a bedroom, witnessed by his sister. But his sister was never questioned by police and later said she couldn't remember the incident.

ATTACKED in Temple Cowley swimming pool's family changing room. But the defence pointed out that the pool was closed at the time for refurbishment and the family changing area did not even exist until several years later. ATTACKED on Margate Pier. But the defence showed the pier blew down in 1978 - five years before the supposed assault.

ATTACKED in his grandparents' greenhouse. But the defence claimed he could not have jammed the door shut, as she alleged, because it was broken, and in any case it was an unlikely venue as it was in full view of the house.

ATTACKED in the street. But the defence argued Les was with his assistant 12 miles away. ATTACKED in his house twice, after which she waited in a park until midnight and then, on one occasion, went home. But the victim's own mother admitted she could not remember seeing any bruising or ripped clothing, and even admitted her daughter had been "a horrendous teenager".

ATTACKED on her bike by Les in a car. This claim was thrown out by the trial judge, who knew the spot concerned and realised it was impossible. The woman also claimed that she accused Les in front of his mother, who then beat him. But the defence said she knew his mother had died in the meantime and that at the time she was so frail she could not have carried out such a beating.

Despite all these flaws and alibis, the case came down to two incidents where it was Les's word against hers. They were impossible to prove either way. But 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 today be 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 Les to four years, although he urged him to appeal. Les even claims to have a letter from one of the jurors saying she never believed he was guilty.

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

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