A MAN convicted of assault has won a ten-month battle to clear his name after spending £1,700 he will never see again.

Hampshire electrician Suraj Rathor was found guilty in his absence after a bout of food poisoning prevented him from attending the court case.

Now Mr Rathor’s conviction has been quashed by a High Court judge on the grounds that the 36-year-old was denied a fair trial.

The original case was heard at Southampton Magistrates’ Court in December last year.

Mr Rathor was too ill to attend but District Judge Peter Greenfield cited three previous adjournments and ruled the hearing should go ahead.

After being found guilty of common assault the defendant was told to carry out 100 hours of unpaid work.

Following a judicial review his conviction has now been overturned by Mrs Justice Andrews, who said District Judge Greenfield had made errors of law.

Southampton Magistrates' CourtSouthampton Magistrates' Court

Mr Rathor, of Southampton, is confident he would have been cleared ten months ago if he had been able to attend his trial and give evidence.

He said: “I was angry and shouted at the man but I didn’t spit at him, which is what I was accused of doing.

“I went to court three times but on two occasions the Crown Prosecution Service weren’t ready to proceed and on the third occasion the court was too busy.

“When the case finally went ahead I was ill in bed and didn’t get a fair trial. My solicitor called me to say I’d been convicted in my absence.

“I was angry and disappointed and nearly lost my job as a result of the court’s decision.”

Mr Rathor lodged an appeal and has since spent about £1,700 on clearing his name.

He said: “It’s cost me a lot of money but I had to go all the way. If I hadn’t I’d have been left with a wrongful conviction.”

Mr Rathor confirmed that his legal costs would not be reimbursed despite his conviction being overturned.

“If I were in a similar situation again I wouldn’t think twice about spending the money to clear my name and get justice.”

Mr Rathor’s legal firm, Rustem Guardian, of High Holborn, London, has sent him a letter confirming the outcome of the judicial review.

It said: “The matter was listed for trial on December 4 2017 but you were too ill to attend. However District Judge Greenfield said the matter had continued for too long and would have to go ahead in your absence, thus depriving you of a fair trial.

“We applied to have the case reopened in the interests of justice.”

But the letter says District Judge Greenfield rejected the application on the grounds that a medical note presented at the hearing had not been available at the original trial.

It adds: “A High Court judge has decided the District Judge made errors of law at both hearings which led him to exercise his discretion unfairly.”

The Crown Prosecution Service declined to comment.