Allegations: Graeme Stening, 52, a senior lawyer at a private equity firm, was accused of the broad daylight sex attack by the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons - but the case has been dropped

A married City lawyer will not be charged with sexual assault following a rush hour liaison with a QC outside Waterloo Station, it emerged today

Graeme Stening, 52, a senior lawyer at a private equity firm, was accused of the broad daylight sex attack by the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons.

The woman, who was arrested and thrown in the cells after being caught drunkenly engaging in sexual activity with her knickers round her ankles, initially accepted a caution.

But weeks later claimed she had actually been sexually assaulted and as a result of her belated allegation she has guaranteed anonymity for life.

After an eight month investigation police have decided not to charge him, according toThe Sun.

He still denies a charge of outraging public decency by engaging in a broad-daylight sexual act during the evening rush hour outside London's Waterloo station.

Stening's trial is due to begin at Camberwell Magistrates' Court in south London, on June 23.

His solicitor Amarjit Bhachu has previously protested at his client's name being tarnished by 'false allegations'.

And a source familiar with the case claimed in February the anonymous QC had belatedly cried assault because she was desperate to keep her drunken romp a secret – and did not care how much harm she did to Stening in the process.

The source added that there were plans to report her to the Bar Council – the barristers' regulatory body – for bringing the profession into disrepute. However, it is understood the QC will argue she was unwell at the time of the incident, and therefore not in a position to properly consent to the caution.

Liaison: The pair were accused of engaging in sexual activity in public near Waterloo station in London - Mr Stening still denies an indecency charge

But the source told the Daily Mail: 'She is undermining the profession by making such an allegation in order to keep secret the disgrace of a night in the cells for public sexual activity.'

The source went on: 'It all happened last summer when Graeme met this prominent QC for a business lunch – at her suggestion. It turned into a long, boozy afternoon. At around 7pm they were allegedly seen against a wall right outside Waterloo station. She was said to have been against the wall with her knickers round her ankles.

'Graeme was also said to be exposed, and was said to have been touching her intimately with one hand, and himself with the other. They were both arrested and taken into the cells overnight to sober up.

'The next morning, at about 10am, Graeme accepted they had a bit of a snog, but denied any wrongdoing, and was then charged with outraging public decency. But she signed a caution, accepting that they had been engaging in sexual activity in the street. It was not full intercourse, but it was a lot more than a snog.

'They wouldn't have interviewed her unless she was sober and she had taken legal advice before signing. And she's a QC.'

Home: Stening, who reportedly lives with his wife of 27 years Sian, 50, in a £1.7million detached house in Windlesham, Surrey (pictured), denies one count of outraging public decency last September 21

LAW WHICH PREVENTS THE LEADING QC BEING NAMED Under laws in England and Wales those individuals who have made an allegation that they have been sexually assault should be provided with anonymity during the investigations and subsequent case, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. If an individual has a right of anonymity it means that they have a right to remain anonymous to the general public. This means that they will be unable to be named in any reports which are released to the general public through the press, unless (as is unusual) a court removed the restriction because it considers it unreasonable. The main reason behind this principle was the factor that it was felt that the victim has already suffered the physical and emotional abuse following the rape that if allegations concerning her sexual history, behaviour, clothing or even questions that she may have asked for it were aired in the media then she would be forced to suffer even more emotional abuse. Source: inBrief Advertisement

The source went on: 'Then, six weeks later she goes back to the same police officer and says, 'I shouldn't have accepted this caution'.

'She said she was going to make an application to have the caution quashed, because she shouldn't have accepted it. She then said she wanted to make a new allegation – saying she couldn't remember what happened, because she was so drunk, but now thinks he must have sexually assaulted her.

'Instead of asking her what on earth she was playing at, and why she didn't say that before accepting the caution, the officer took it up and phoned Graeme – leaving a message with a member of staff at his work. It's all maximising embarrassment to him. He was told he would be arrested if he didn't go for a 'voluntary' interview about it.'

Lawyers have claimed her case is damaging to the argument that alleged sex attack victims should get automatic anonymity.

Mark Stephens, a media and human rights expert, told The Times: 'This case is an abject lesson in the manipulation of the anonymity laws around allegations of sexual assault.

'There are very good reasons for having anonymity in many cases. However, if there are many more cases like this one, then the public interest is going to demand that the alleged victims are also named.'