Sir Jeffrey Donaldson Refutes Claims of Meeting Accuser to Quash Allegations

Donaldson denies meeting sex abuse accuser – Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the 63-year-old former leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), has rejected the idea that he met one of his two alleged sex abuse victims to “nip in the bud” accusations against him. The trial, ongoing at Newry Crown Court, has entered its second day of testimony, with Donaldson standing trial for 18 counts, including rape, alleged to have occurred between 1985 and 2008. The proceedings began three weeks ago, and the court has heard evidence from two complainants, referred to as Complainants A and B, who both claim to have been abused by Donaldson during their childhood.

Meeting at the Christian Family Centre

The prosecution, led by Rosemary Walsh KC, has questioned Donaldson about a meeting he attended with Complainant B at the Christian Family Centre in Armoy, a facility in the late 1990s. This meeting was arranged by Davey Hoy, one of the centre’s founders, following an account Complainant B provided to a pastor about the alleged abuse. Walsh suggested that Donaldson’s attendance might have been motivated by a desire to “nip in the bud” the allegations, but he strongly denied this, emphasizing that he was not “worried” about the encounter and had gone “willingly.”

“That’s not true. I didn’t say ‘you need to get up to Armoy as there are serious issues to deal with.’ I was not worried about going. I went willingly,” Donaldson stated during his testimony.

Donaldson claimed he had no prior knowledge that the meeting was specifically about the allegations. He described the session as a “positive experience,” stating that Complainant B had become a Christian and wanted to move forward. “I responded to that,” he said, adding that they had embraced at the conclusion of the meeting, which also included Hoy and his wife, Linda.

Testimony from Complainant B

Complainant B’s account of the meeting contrasted with Donaldson’s. She testified that Donaldson had apologized during the session, but he insisted that his apologies were conditional, offered only if he had ever made her feel “uncomfortable.” He denied that any allegations were raised during the meeting, asserting, “If the suggestion is that what I was apologising for is that someone had said there were allegations, that is not the case.”

“She had become a Christian and wanted to move forward… I responded to that,” Donaldson said, explaining his actions during the meeting.

Earlier in the trial, the court heard from Linda Hoy, who described how Complainant B had cried during the session after expressing forgiveness toward Donaldson. Walsh then pressed the defendant about this emotional moment, asking why Complainant B had wept if the meeting was a “positive experience” as he described. Donaldson admitted he couldn’t recall the tears but maintained they were a natural reaction, saying, “I remember talking with her, I don’t remember the tears, I remember we embraced at the end of the meeting… maybe when I left there were tears, I don’t know.”

Questions Over Alleged Fabrications

Walsh also brought up evidence that Complainant B had shared her claims with Claire Selfridge, the daughter of Davey Hoy, when they were both teenagers. She asked Donaldson if Complainant B had lied to Selfridge, prompting him to respond, “I was not aware of the meeting and was not aware of what happened.” The lawyer then expanded her inquiry to Stephen Matthews, a Christian pastor, stating that Complainant B had previously told him she had been sexually abused. Donaldson confirmed that he had consistently denied the truth of her allegations, saying, “Yes, the allegations being made by her, I have said repeatedly are untrue.”

Denial of Specific Acts

Later in his testimony, Donaldson addressed claims that he had used a light to stare at the genitals of Complainant A during an alleged incident. He categorically rejected the idea, stating, “Absolutely not. There was no issue of me looking at her genitals, shining a light on her genitals, absolutely nothing of that sort took place.” He also dismissed the notion that he had been “caught in the act” during this encounter.

Walsh further questioned Donaldson about another alleged incident involving Complainant A, where the complainant had once confronted him about the abuse. She asked if the meeting had been a result of his awareness of the accusations. Donaldson replied, “There is no situation where [Complainant A] sat me down and said, ‘Did you do this to me or that to me, or you sexually abuse me?’ That did not happen.” He continued to deny any acts of gross indecency or indecent assault against Complainant A, asserting that the allegations were entirely false.

Context of the Trial

The trial has already revealed a timeline of abuse spanning nearly two decades, from 1985 to 2008. Complainant B’s testimony highlighted her journey from childhood trauma to seeking reconciliation, while Donaldson’s account focused on his attempts to appear cooperative. The court has also heard how the Hoys played a role in arranging the meeting, with Linda Hoy recounting her husband’s efforts to mediate between Donaldson and the complainant.

Walsh’s cross-examination sought to link Donaldson’s actions to a pattern of behavior aimed at suppressing allegations. She asked if the meeting with Complainant B had been orchestrated to “take control” of the situation, to which he responded, “I didn’t take control of that meeting, I did not march into that meeting and say ‘OK I know what this is about.'” This exchange underscored the tension between the prosecution’s narrative and Donaldson’s defense.

Throughout the proceedings, Donaldson has maintained that his actions were not premeditated. He described the meeting as an attempt to build rapport, not to eliminate the allegations. “I was not worried about going,” he repeated, emphasizing his willingness to engage with Complainant B. However, the prosecution has argued that the timing and setting of the meeting suggest otherwise, highlighting the potential for Donaldson to influence the complainant’s account.

As the trial progresses, the focus remains on reconciling conflicting testimonies. While Complainant B’s emotional response during the meeting has been cited as evidence of her vulnerability, Donaldson’s denials and his claim of voluntary participation have left the court with questions. The case continues to unfold, with each new piece of evidence shaping the narrative around one of Northern Ireland’s most high-profile sex abuse trials.