A businessman cleared of sexually assaulting a woman at a London nightclub only after vital CCTV emerged at the last minute has slammed police and prosecutors.

A judge demanded an inquiry after footage which would have exonerated Valentin Krzyzyk, 27, was not seen by his defence team until the trial.

Internet entrepreneur Mr Krzyzyk always denied he had grabbed the woman's bottom and called her a 'thot', meaning 'that ho over there', at London's Cirque Le Soir nightclub.

But CCTV footage showing the alleged victim continuing to drink with friends after the alleged attack was only released to defence and prosecution barristers on the first day of trial.

Lawyers had previously been informed by the officer in the case that there was nothing of relevance in the footage, the court heard.

Speaking after after he had been cleared, internet entrepreneur Mr Krzyzyk spoke of his relief - and his anger at alleged prosecution failures.

Valentin Krzyzyk was cleared of sexual assault after vital CCTV footage was finally handed over to his defence team. The businessman has slammed the alleged failures of prosecutors

He told the Standard: 'The arrest has been a huge trauma and it took me a very long time to be able to sleep again.

'Also there is the stress caused when you are wrongly accused of such a serious crime and all the shame that comes with it.

'It is also very stressful to face trial for such serious allegations and to know that the police is keeping information from you that would show your innocence straight away.'

The first time Mr Krzyzyk saw the footage was when the jury were shown it in court and the complainant broke down in tears when it was played to her, saying she also had not seen it before.

At one point in the footage the view is blocked for a short 'vital moment' when someone walks in front of the camera for five seconds.

However Judge Recorder Michael Bromley-Martin QC said: 'That does not mean that the CCTV on the whole was not very important and significant evidence in the case.'

The case comes amid mounting concerns over how sex attack cases are prosecuted.

Mr Krzyzyk was accused of grabbing a woman's bottom and called her a 'thot' after splashing out £6,000 on Dom Perignon on 20 December 2016. The word is said to stand for 'That Ho Over There'.

Mr Krzyzyk always denied slapping the woman's bottom during a row at a nightclub

Krzyzyk had been partying with friends at London's Cirque Le Soir club when he was said to have lifted the complainant's skirt before slapping her hard on the buttocks and groping her crotch.

The woman tearfully gave evidence claiming she had been hysterical and crying after the alleged incident.

But the French businessman flatly denied making any contact with her whatsoever and insisted he merely shooed the woman away after she helped herself to the table's drinks.

When a 'combination of errors' by the Crown Prosecution Service and police saw no witnesses called to give evidence on the first day of trial, Krzyzyk's barrister Narita Bahra made a fresh request for CCTV footage from the nightclub to be handed over.

It was referred to in court in February last year and should have automatically been served on the defence without them having to ask.

But neither Mr Krzyzyk or his lawyer had seen it despite repeated demands across the 10 months leading to trial.

After being told there was nothing relevant on the disk, Ms Bahra spent the night trawling through five hours' worth of footage before finding evidence which completely contradicted the complainant's account.

The film showed her appearing to carry on drinking and nonchalantly flicking her hair after the alleged attack.

She could then be seen strolling over to security and pointing her so-called assailant out to door staff who dragged him away and booted him out.

The row was caught on CCTV at London's Cirque Le Soir nightclub, but the footage was not handed over to the accused's defence team

The case was left to a jury at Southwark Crown Court on the basis that 'at a vital moment' five seconds of footage was obscured by two revellers passing in front of view during the alleged incident.

Jurors reached a majority verdict clearing Krzyzyk of a single count of sexual assault last month.

Following the verdict, the judge, Mr Recorder Michael Bromley-Martin QC, ordered an inquiry into why no witnesses were available to be called on the first day.

He also ordered a similar probe into the reasons behind the 'reprehensible' late service of footage.

Both the CPS and Metropolitan Police were represented in court today as they conceded there had been an 'unnecessary or improper act or omission' in respect of the first failure.

Judge Michael Bromley-Martin QC, pictured, said the late handing over of the CCTV was 'reprehensible'

The judge awarded Krzyzyk £4,800 in wasted costs after he had to pay for his barrister and solicitor to attend the fifth day of what was scheduled to be a four-day trial.

'I am entirely satisfied that there has been an unnecessary or improper act or omission in the failure on the part of the prosecution to warn any prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, in this allegation of sexual assault for the first day of the trial,' the judge said.

'Indeed, it is conceded on behalf of the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service that the cause of the failure was a combination of errors by the witness care unit to liaise with the officer in the case and the inaction of the CPS.'

The judge said there was a 'serious omission' by the prosecutor and officer in the case to check the 'very important and significant' CCTV evidence, let alone serve it on the defence.

'For reasons that are not clear to me, even though that CCTV footage was produced by a prosecution witness and therefore an exhibit in the case it was not produced to the defence despite many requests for its production,' he said.

'There has been a suggestion that this was a failure of disclosure of unused material.'

He added: 'This was very far from being unused material. This was evidence which was referred to in a witness statement and as such should have been an exhibit.

'This was not a failure of disclosure - this was a failure to serve the prosecution case.'

The judge said 'it is necessary for the Crown Prosecution Service to make sure that evidence upon which they wish to rely, particularly evidence which is capable of assisting the defence as well, it is necessary for the CPS to ensure that such a failure never occurs again'.

'But I emphasise this is not a case of the failure of disclosure which has been in other recent cases the subject of publicity,' he concluded.