A police detective was awarded $5 damages Friday in a defamation suit she brought against a hotel owner who had complained she had acted unprofessionally.

But Det. Sgt. Sharman Marcus, now has to pay thousands of dollars in court costs.

"I suspect that from her perspective she will be pleased that defamation was found to exist," said her lawyer Tim Marshall. "With respect to the financial aspect I suspect that she will be disappointed."

Sgt. Marcus had been offered $2,000 months before the start of the trial.

But she declined and went ahead with the suit alleging that Bridget Marshall - a part owner of the Palm Reef Hotel - had defamed her on more than one occasion in 1996 after she had gone to the hotel to investigate what she thought was a complaint of a break-in.

Ms Marshall's lawyer told the court that she had in fact called to complain of a theft at the hotel and that she had strongly suspected a staff member.

Puisne Judge Phillip Storr heard that the officer arrived at the hotel and started a conversation with the suspect who she knew.

The hotel manager Emma Garon said that she overheard bits of the conversation and concluded that the two had been talking about the theft. She called Ms Marshall and the two decided that they would concoct a false story about the reason for the call to the Police. The suspect left the premises soon after, without clocking out.

Ms Marshall later called the police accusing Sergeant Marcus, who denied speaking to the employee about the theft, of unprofessional conduct and of compromising the investigation by warning the suspect.

Police sent another Sergeant to investigate the theft. The employee's home was searched and no stolen property was found.

Ms Marshall later wrote a letter of complaint to the Police Commissioner. Sergeant Marcus' complaint of defamation depended on whether the complaint to the Police Commissioner and other police officers was motivated by malice, according to the judgment. That, he said, was better suited for a jury to determine.

"I am satisfied that the two ladies felt that they had been put in an embarrassing and extremely difficult situation by the actions of Sgt. Marcus and I further find that the way in which they dealt with the matter was merely their immediate response to being confronted with this situation," the judge said in his written ruling.

"I do not consider that it was a premeditated scheme to mislead the Police and/or discredit the Plaintiff. There was no intent to obstruct or pervert the cause of justice."

Ms Marshall's complaint was protected by privilege from allegations of defamation, he added. A conversation Ms Marshall had some weeks later with another police officer, however, was defamatory but no damage had been done to Sgt. Marcus, the judge held.

"The Plaintiff herself said that the complaint had no effect on her job and the witnesses called on behalf of the Plaintiff, without exception, say that the knowledge of the complaint did not in any way affect the high esteem which was held for the sergeant. The evidence was that she was a competent, respected officer who had an unblemished career."

But he went on to award $5 damages and later awarded costs to Ms Marshall.

Ms Marshall had at one point paid $2,000 to the court before the trial started but it was not accepted by Sgt. Marcus. Had she accepted, the case would not have been tried.

"Her point was not the money," said Mr. Marshall. "My client's point was having the determination that there was defamation. So from that perspective she succeeded in part. The bottom line is the money never makes anybody whole."

The bulk of the costs run into several thousand dollars, according to Ms Marshall's lawyer Kieron Unwin. "Libel is a difficult game to play."