A Police constable yesterday appeared at a special tribunal facing charges of sexually harassing a woman colleague.

Ex-P.c. Wakeel Butterfield claims she was a victim of serving officer Kenrick Shillingford while the two worked together.

And her lawyer Clare Hatcher called on tribunal chairman Tim Marshall to hear the evidence along civil law lines -- on the balance of probability.

But Richard Hector, appearing for P.c. Shillingford, told Mr. Marshall: "This file was referred on two occasions to the Attorney General with a view to a prosecution.'' He added, however, that no further action was taken and an internal inquiry in the Police Service also decided to go no further with the case.

Mr. Hector said: "This particular complaint was the proper subject of complaint for sexual assault.

"This was the proper area..you cannot, you should not, in my submission, indulge in an abuse of the system by putting my client through this long ordeal in an effort to find a solution which in some way penalises him when the criminal investigation has found nothing.'' And he added: "It's a case of depending on which shop you go to, you get what you want.'' Details of the allegation were not made public yesterday and will not be revealed until evidence is heard later this week.

But Mr. Hector said, while his client admitted nothing, that the charge was serious enough to require criminal court standards of proof -- beyond reasonable doubt.

He added: "My own approach is that this is a matter severe enough because of the possible consequences, which I consider to be very severe.

"Even if you aren't thinking about criminal prosecution, think about how it affects his livelihood and professional reputation.

"I am submitting that the burden of proof should be the criminal standard of proof.'' But Ms Hatcher said that a finding against the respondent would not necessarily influence the Attorney General's Chambers in the direction of legal action.

She added: "It doesn't necessarily mean that the facts established by the board of inquiry would necessarily result in a prosecution, although he could consider that.'' Mr. Marshall told the two lawyers he would rule on the standard of proof required later this week.

The tribunal was set up to investigate the allegation -- dating back to September, 1996 -- after Ms Butterfield complained of sexual harassment to the Human Rights Commission.

The HRC took it to the relevant Minister, who used his discretion to order a Board of Inquiry to examine the allegation.

Much of yesterday's hearing was taken up with legal arguments whether the single incident alleged constituted sexual harassment under the Human Rights Act and over what standard of proof Mr. Marshall should set.

But Ms Hatcher told Mr. Marshall that the words "a course of'' in relation to sexual harassment in the Act did, and should, cover a single incident.

And she added: "I don't accept that the ordinary meaning of harassment is continuous.'' The hearing continues.

Richard Hector