The man, whose name was suppressed in the High Court judgement, and his partner of 16 years, who has stuck by him throughout the ordeal, spoke publicly for the first time on Thursday after the case was officially dropped in the WA District Court, and his innocence validated. "From day dot I kept repeating I did nothing wrong," the man said. "I stuck to my guns (as did) all those people that stuck by me and believed me." The man was charged several years ago with four counts of indecently dealing with a child under 13. He pleaded not guilty and stood trial in 2016, nearly 20 years after the alleged offences were said to have taken place.

The alleged complainant gave evidence during the trial, but during her evidence she admitted telling some lies. The prosecution case was heavily dependent on her credibility. At the end of the trial the Judge directed members of the jury "not follow a process of reasoning" that just because the complainant was shown to have told a lie, that all of her evidence was dishonest and could not be relied upon. The man was found guilty of one charge and not guilty of one other. The two other charges had earlier been withdrawn from the jury. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison, and served 15, spending most of his time in Acacia prison.

"I was sour, I was angry," the man said. "When you get in there, you are not human in that place. "I found it very strange and degrading." The man spent 15 months in prison. Credit:File/iStock The man and his new lawyers – Sam Vandongen and Shash Nigam – appealed his conviction in the WA Court of Appeal largely on the basis there was no established legal basis for the "impugned direction" to be given by the trial Judge. But the appeal was dismissed.

They then took the appeal all the way to the High Court in Canberra, which set aside the Court of Appeal's decision, quashed the man's conviction and ordered a new trial. However, there will be no need for a new trial after the DPP filed a discontinuance notice in the District Court. The High Court ruled it was open to the jury to find the complainant's lies "precluded acceptance of her evidence of the commission of the offences beyond reasonable doubt". "It was that process of reasoning which the impugned direction took away," the ruling said, adding: "The misdirection cannot therefore have been one which had no effect upon the jury, acting reasonably, in its verdict. Conviction was not inevitable." The man's partner said the High Court ruling made them feel "wonderful".

"We didn't need a plane to get back here (to WA) we flew back ourselves, that's how high we were feeling," she said. "It was just wonderful. "He was that determined to prove his innocence he said 'if I have to spend every last cent I will, and I will go back to work'. "(But) he hasn't been able to work, because he has had this hanging over his head." Mr Nigam said the High Court judgment was very important to his client, and also a very important legal precedent. "You need a huge amount of heart together with the financial resources to go all the way to the High Court. Thankfully for him, he had both," Mr Nigam said.