A BLACK police officer who sued a neighbouring force after he was "humiliated" by fellow officers when a woman falsely accused him of rape has lost his claim for damages.

PC Steven Allen, 35, claimed he was abused by colleagues because he was black.

The High Court, sitting in Newcastle, heard how his arrest, in June l996, came while he was working as a police officer in West Yorkshire, based in Leeds.

The court was told he had had a sexual encounter six months earlier with a 28-year-old law student in Middlesbrough, to whom he was introduced by a friend.

The woman, who wanted to be a barrister, later complained to Cleveland Police that she had been raped.

She said she believed she had been drugged before being attacked.

Mr Allen was arrested as he started his shift, and despite protesting his innocence he was paraded through four police stations and questioned persistently before being released the following day.

But, as police began to investigate the alleged crime, it was discovered the woman, known as Elizabeth, was a drug abuser who was receiving psychiatric treatment and who had made up the allegation.

Mr Allen was informed five days later by letter that no action was to be taken against him.

But he decided to sue Cleveland Police because the humiliation he suffered led to depression and forced him to quit.

His barrister, Eric Elliott, said that "even if taken at face value, the allegations were bizarre and improbable, from a woman who had a disturbed mind.

"No reasonable man would have given these allegations any weight at all."

Cleveland Police claimed the arrest was lawful, and yesterday Mr Justice Holland dismissed Mr Allen's claim of unlawful arrest.

He said that although he was sympathetic to the claimant over his false rape experience, he supported the police's decision to execute an arrest.

He added that he believed that on the strength of evidence police had, at the time the allegation was made, they had to take the action they did.

He said: "So far from being unreasonable, it would have been arguably a dereliction of duty not to react to the information that had been received."

Mr Allen was distressed by the decision of the court, and after the hearing he said: "This is completely unfair.