Facebook
Britain's News Portal
Around The Clock
BREAKING
Loading latest headlines…

Donaldson Denies Meeting Accuser to 'Nip in the Bud' Allegations

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, former DUP leader, has denied attending a meeting with a sex abuse accuser to suppress allegations. He is currently on trial facing 18 charges, including rape, which he denies.

  • Sir Jeffrey Donaldson denies attending a meeting with Complainant B in the late 1990s to 'nip in the bud' abuse allegations.
  • He stated he went willingly and was not aware the meeting was about specific allegations, claiming he was apologising if he had made her feel 'uncomfortable'.
  • Complainant B and other witnesses have given differing accounts of the meeting, including claims of an apology and tears.
  • Donaldson denies all 18 charges, including rape, gross indecency, and indecent assault, against two alleged victims.
  • His wife, Lady Eleanor Donaldson, faces a trial of the facts on five charges of aiding and abetting.

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the former leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), has vigorously denied meeting one of his two sex abuse accusers in the late 1990s with the intention of quashing allegations against him. As he gives evidence for a second day at Newry Crown Court, Sir Jeffrey is facing 18 serious charges, including rape, which allegedly took place between 1985 and 2008.

Prosecution lawyer Rosemary Walsh KC questioned Sir Jeffrey about his meeting with Complainant B at the Christian Family Centre in Armoy, which was arranged by centre founder Davey Hoy after Complainant B had disclosed alleged abuse to a pastor. Ms Walsh suggested that Sir Jeffrey's attendance was motivated by a desire to "nip in the bud" the emerging allegations, but he emphatically denied this, stating: "That's not true." He maintained that he attended willingly and was not concerned about the meeting, repeatedly insisting that he had no prior knowledge it concerned specific allegations of abuse.

Sir Jeffrey offered an alternative explanation for an apology he reportedly made during the meeting. While Complainant B stated that he apologised to her for the abuse, Sir Jeffrey claimed he was apologising if his behaviour had ever made her feel "uncomfortable" about him. He asserted that no allegations were raised during the short meeting, which was also attended by Mr Hoy and his wife Linda. He explained that Complainant B wanted to move forward as a Christian and he was responding to that sentiment. Sir Jeffrey recalled embracing Complainant B at the end of the meeting.

Earlier evidence from Linda Hoy stated that Complainant B cried during the meeting when she forgave Sir Jeffrey. When questioned by Ms Walsh about these tears, given his description of the meeting as a "positive experience," Sir Jeffrey said: "I remember talking with her; I don't recall the tears. I do remember we embraced at the end of the meeting… maybe there were tears after I left, but I'm not certain." He also denied Ms Walsh's suggestion that he "took control" of the meeting and immediately expressed his true remorse.

Ms Walsh pressed Sir Jeffrey on evidence that Complainant B had disclosed allegations to the Hoys' daughter, Claire Selfridge, during their teenage years, and later to Christian pastor Stephen Matthews. Sir Jeffrey stated that he was "not aware of the meeting" with Selfridge and reiterated that the allegations made by Complainant B are "untrue." He also expressed his confusion as to why both alleged victims had gone to the police at the same time, maintaining that their allegations are "untrue." The trial continues, with Sir Jeffrey's wife, Lady Eleanor Donaldson, facing five charges of aiding and abetting her husband's alleged offending. Her trial is proceeding on a separate track due to concerns about her mental health.

Why this matters: This trial involves a prominent political figure in the UK, and the outcome will be closely watched, particularly given the serious nature of the allegations and the public interest in justice for alleged victims of abuse.

What this means for you: What this means for you: This case highlights the legal process for serious allegations against public figures and the importance of due process in the UK justice system, which underpins the rule of law for all citizens.

Related Articles

Get the news that matters.

Join thousands of readers getting the best of British news straight to their inbox.