A Policewoman who claimed another constable sexually harassed her has had her case thrown out by a Board of Inquiry.

The 26-year-old, known only as P.c. A, broke down in tears Friday when tribunal chairman Tim Marshall handed down his ruling.

But accused officer P.c. B, a married West Indian, vowed to get on with his life after a "just decision''.

Clare Hatcher, the complainant's lawyer, urged Police to set up strict codes of conduct on sexual harassment, so victims will not be frightened to come forward.

And she said her client had still not decided on whether to appeal, having turned to the Human Rights Commission tribunal after two failed criminal investigations and a dropped internal Police inquiry.

The woman, who has now quit the Police force, claimed her attacker forced a kiss on her in his office at Somerset Police Station, pushing his tongue into her mouth.

She also said he held his own private parts, telling her he wanted her, in a 15-minute ordeal on September 11, 1996. The former constable added that she shouted: "What the f*** are you doing?'' But the tribunal heard that nobody in the Police station appeared to hear the incident.

And Mr. Marshall ruled Friday he could not believe the complainant was sexually harassed in P.c. B's office, dismissing her case and saying the full truth may never be known.

He said: "What is agreed between the complainant and the respondent is that the complainant entered the respondent's office...

"Thereafter, the evidence of the complainant and the respondent is diametrically opposed. This is a classic case of one person's word against the other.

"There are no eye witnesses to what took place in the office and, therefore, no direct evidence which could have been evaluated alongside the evidence of the complainant and the respondent.'' He said he did not understand how P.c. B could have forced his tongue inside P.c. A's mouth, considering her arms were not being held down. And he said nobody heard the Policewoman's alleged cried of "What the f*** are you doing?'' He also said doubt could be shed on the evidence of both officers.

But he said P.c. A's upset and distress -- which she said caused her to quit the force -- was more to do with failed prosecutions rather than the incident itself.

Mr. Marshall also questioned why it took P.c. A five days to report the incident, even though she described her Chief Inspector, Larry Smith, as a "father figure''.

The Chairman said the case hinged on the evidence of temporary secretary Doreen Morrison, who spent three weeks at the station and said she noticed nothing unusual on the day of the alleged attack.

He added: "The cumulative effect of the evidence that touches upon the credibility and reliability of the complainant's testimony raises insurmountable concerns in my mind.

"I am satisfied that something not related to work took place in the respondent's office, but because of my misgivings in respect of the respondent's account of events the truth of what actually took place has not and may never emerge.'' At the end of the three-month tribunal, the accused officer said: "I think it was a just decision.'' Clare Hatcher, who represented P.c. A, spoke to The Royal Gazette after consoling her devastated client.

She said: "Hopefully the Police will take something from this and improve their practices.''