The Guardian pays £58,000 in libel damages for Abu Ghraib abuse story

The story also went out on The Guardian website and became available around the world despite Col Campbell James, an officer in the Intelligence Corps, not even being in Iraq when the abuse occurred.

Mr Justice Eady, presiding over the case, criticised the paper for its "remarkably casual attitude" in not printing an apology for three months.

"It could not have hurt The Guardian to acknowledge promptly that the claimant had nothing to do with the Abu Ghraib abuses and was not even in Iraq when they took place.

"For some reason, The Guardian felt unable to take those basic steps. It was not simply a matter of good journalistic practice. It was a matter of elementary human decency," Mr Justice Eady said.

The High Court awarded damages yesterday for serious libel against the officer which would it said would have a "lasting and profound impact'' on the officer's reputation.

The £58,000 compensation is the largest to date under the UK's offer of amends system, where courts lower libel damages awards when a defendent offers to publish a suitable correction and a sufficient apology and to pay the claimant compensation and costs, avoiding a full trial.

Col Campbell-James, who was not in court to hear the verdict, said in a statement: "When I returned from Iraq, I returned as an acting Brigadier with a very good report on what was a difficult operational tour and I was quite proud with what I had done.

"I was quite pleased with what I thought was likely to be the impact of that service on my career generally, so when I saw an article which clearly implicated me in what I personally considered to be a disastrous series of events, I was extremely upset."

If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the Forum.