Prosecution Urges Conviction, Citing Unignorable Consequences
In the sex abuse trial involving Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the former leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), the prosecution has delivered its closing statement, arguing that the alleged actions against two women, committed when they were children, must result in a guilty verdict. Prosecutor Rosemary Walsh KC emphasized that the repercussions of Sir Jeffrey's alleged conduct, and to a lesser extent his wife Lady Eleanor Donaldson's, are the central reason for the court proceedings.
Sir Jeffrey has entered a not guilty plea to 18 charges of sexual abuse, including one count of rape, with allegations spanning from 1985 to 2008. Lady Donaldson, who is not participating in the proceedings due to a trial of the facts, denies five related charges of aiding and abetting.
Defence Calls for Focus on Evidence, Ignoring External Factors
Conversely, Sir Jeffrey's barrister, Kieran Vaughan KC, urged the jury to disregard external influences such as media coverage and Sir Jeffrey's political background. He stressed the importance of evaluating the evidence objectively and impartially, reminding the jury that a conviction requires certainty, stating, "Nothing less will do. Suspicion is not good enough. You have to be sure."
Walsh, in her closing remarks, asserted that the alleged victims, referred to as Complainant A and Complainant B, did not fabricate their accounts. She contended that their presence in court stems from the "consequences that cannot be ignored and brushed under the carpet any longer" of the sexual abuse they reportedly endured. Walsh maintained that when all evidence is considered, it corroborates the complainants' truthfulness. She highlighted the immense difficulty the women faced in coming forward, describing it as a "long and arduous process" and not an act taken lightly.
The prosecutor also suggested that both Complainant A and B had suppressed their experiences over the years, with specific "turning points" in their lives leading them to report the allegations to the police in March 2024. Walsh noted Complainant A's awareness that the high-profile nature of Sir Jeffrey's position would make her case particularly challenging, requiring her to grapple with significant implications.
Furthermore, Walsh detailed how Complainant B reportedly blamed herself for Complainant A's alleged abuse for not speaking out sooner. Despite having confided in others, including a pastor and founders of a Christian center, about her childhood abuse, Complainant B had not disclosed the specific details because, Walsh stated, "no one asked her."
A significant point raised by the prosecution was a meeting in the 1990s at the Christian Family Centre in Armoy, County Antrim, involving Complainant B, Sir Jeffrey, and the center's founders. This meeting occurred after Complainant B had spoken to a pastor about alleged abuse. The trial had heard Sir Jeffrey apologized during this meeting, but he maintained it was not for any alleged offenses, asserting he apologized for potentially making Complainant B feel "uncomfortable." Walsh argued this meeting was crucial, supporting Complainant B's account and suggesting Sir Jeffrey's willingness to alter his narrative.
Walsh also referenced a letter from Sir Jeffrey to Complainant A, where he spoke of being in a "deep pit of sin" and causing "deep wounds." While Sir Jeffrey previously testified this letter was unrelated to Complainant A's allegations, Walsh deemed the reference to causing "deep wounds" as "highly significant."
Defence Challenges Complainants' Credibility and Lack of Evidence
Kieran Vaughan KC, in his closing address for the defence, urged the jury to disregard the "bombardment" of external information from social media and traditional news outlets. He stressed that such "noise" would not aid in reaching a truthful verdict. He also reminded the jury that Lady Eleanor Donaldson's police interview evidence is inadmissible against her husband.
Vaughan identified "significant warning signs" regarding the two alleged victims' accounts, framing the case as their word against his client's. He highlighted the considerable time elapsed since the alleged offenses—between 21 and 39 years—and the lack of precise dates for the charges. He further pointed out the absence of medical, forensic, or contemporary witness evidence, advising the jury to scrutinize the complainants' statements with "extra care."
Sir Jeffrey, in his testimony, stated his belief that the complainants were lying. Vaughan argued it was an "impossible question" for Sir Jeffrey to explain why they might fabricate allegations, cautioning the jury against assuming truthfulness simply because the complainants presented their case. He found it "beyond odd" that both women came forward on the same day in 2024 with similar complaints against the same individual after many years.
The defence barrister reiterated that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and that Sir Jeffrey is not required to prove his innocence. Addressing Complainant B's allegations, particularly the rape charge, Vaughan stated it "almost defies belief" due to the lack of forensic or medical evidence, no contemporary complaint, and no witnesses observing unusual behavior. He concluded it was "her word against his word."
Vaughan also challenged another allegation by Complainant B that Sir Jeffrey had touched her chest, witnessed by Lady Donaldson, who then walked away, describing this as equally implausible. He cited several "points of concern" in Complainant B's evidence, suggesting she was an unreliable witness. He posited that her earlier disclosures to a friend and pastor about abuse were attempts to "arouse sympathy" and serve as a "deflection" from other life issues.
Questioning Sir Jeffrey's motive for attending the meeting with the Hoys and Complainant B if he had abused her, Vaughan argued it would have been "insane" for him to put himself in a position where independent witnesses could later testify to admissions of rape and sexual abuse, which he maintained did not occur.
Vaughan is expected to conclude his closing speech, followed by Lady Donaldson's barrister, Ian Turkington KC. Sir Jeffrey denies acts of gross indecency and indecent assault against Complainant A between 1999 and 2008, and other alleged offenses, including rape, against Complainant B dating back to 1985. Lady Donaldson's trial of the facts proceeds due to her being deemed unfit for a conventional trial on mental health grounds.
Source: Donaldson sex abuse allegations cannot be 'brushed under the carpet any longer', jury told