A British lawyer wrongly accused of indecent exposure has lost a landmark malicious prosecution case against the Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions.

Simon Farmer, 52, was charged over an alleged incident in November 2003 when a man was said to have peered in through a window at a residential complex in Paget while masturbating.

He pleaded not guilty to indecent exposure and prowling and a Magistrate subsequently acquitted him, ruling there was no case to answer.

Mr. Farmer later launched an action for malicious prosecution. In it, he claimed that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) – and through his office, the Police – prosecuted him without reasonable cause and with malice in not properly investigating and assessing the facts.

Among his complaints were that they failed to take account of flaws in the eyewitness statement founding the prosecution and that a Police officer told him while he was in custody that he believed him to be guilty.

Mr. Farmer also claimed that the Police failed to check his alibi statement and potential witnesses in support of it, and failed to inform him before trial that DNA analysis of a blood sample did not implicate him.

His malicious prosecution case was struck out by Puisne Judge Geoffrey Bell at the Supreme Court in February 2007. Mr. Farmer appealed to the Court of Appeal, with his case presented earlier this month by Mark Diel of Marshall Diel and Myers, the firm where he used to work.

The Court of Appeal also found against him on Friday, agreeing with the Supreme Court judge that Mr. Farmer's complaints did not infer malice on the part of the DPP.

Mr. Farmer, who spent 22 years working in Bermuda before leaving in 2003 told The Royal Gazette afterwards: "Obviously I'm very disappointed. The reason we thought it worth proceeding was that I don't think most people expect that they would be charged with alleged crimes when the Police haven't actually done any investigation.

"The fundamental point was that the DPP and Police launched the prosecution without ever bothering to check my statement and my whereabouts throughout the evening. I think most people would be rather disturbed to know that this is the level of professionalism of the Police and the DPP."

He was unable to comment on whether he would pursue the case further, saying he would need to discuss this with Mr. Diel.

Mr. Farmer is currently living in Devon, England, where he is recuperating from serious spinal injuries suffered when he fell down a ravine while hiking in Spain last year. It was initially feared that he would be permanently paralysed, although he has now recovered the use of his legs and is making good progress.

According to Government lawyer Martin Johnson, a consultant in the Attorney General's chambers, the appeal raised important questions about the level of immunity prosecutors in Bermuda have against actions for malicious prosecution.

He explained that it is the first time a case of malicious prosecution against the DPP has gone as far as the Court of Appeal.

Although Mr. Farmer's case was rejected, the three judges did rule that the DPP, and the prosecutors and Police working under him, are not immune in all cases from being sued for malicious prosecution.

Mr. Johnson said that is a significant ruling, which defines the law in Bermuda for the first time. However, it does not mean that prosecutors will now find writs flying at them from disgruntled defendants to the extent that they cannot do their jobs properly.

In the ordinary course of their duties, they are immune from being sued for what the law defines as negligence, said Mr. Johnson. Malice goes far beyond that and it is therefore hard to bring such a case.

"If they act in a way which is malicious that means they have a grudge against someone, vengeance or a vendetta," he explained. "If, in the ordinary course of their work, they acted negligently they are immune, the law protects them. It's only if there is malice, and that has to be proved."

Mr. Justice Zacca did not order either side to pay the other's costs since he deemed the case to be brought in the public interest for raising important legal questions.