Jeffrey Donaldson has denied he needed to meet one of the women who accuses him of sexually abusing her to “nip in the bud” the allegations, the jury in his trial has heard.
The former DUP leader also said the Christian minister who arranged the meeting in the late 1990s was “mistaken” in his evidence to the court that it was set up to discuss a “serious” allegation made against him by one of the two women who claim he sexually abused them as children.
Under cross-examination for almost five hours on Friday, Donaldson denied telling lies and that he was “sinful and deceitful”.
“The only person telling lies is you,” prosecution barrister Rosemary Walsh put to him.
READ MORE
“Not true,” Donaldson replied.
On what was Donaldson’s second day in the witness box at Newry Crown Court, Walsh put it to Donaldson that he had gone to the meeting with Complainant B, organised by David Hoy from the Christian Family Centre in Armoy, Co Antrim, “because you knew this was something you needed to nip in the bud”.
“That’s not true,” Donaldson replied. “He didn’t say you need to get up to Armoy as there are serious issues to deal with. It was a positive experience. I went willingly.
“If there was something I had to nip in the bud, why would I wait for a phone call from David Hoy?”
The prosecution barrister put it to Donaldson that Hoy’s “evidence to this court was that an allegation had been made”.
She asked the defendant: “Has he made that up?”
“He is mistaken in his recollection,” Donaldson said. “There was no mention of an allegation.”
The prosecution barrister suggested to Donaldson: “You took control of this meeting, didn’t you?” She said Donaldson knew what it was about and said he was “truly sorry”.
This “didn’t happen”, Donaldson said. “It’s not true to characterise this meeting as I somehow took control ... I know what this is about, let’s get it done.”
“You didn’t want ... to go through the allegations, you shut her [Complainant B] down,” the prosecution barrister said.
“The idea I cut her off and said, we’ll have none of that, that’s absolutely not true,” Donaldson said.
Jeffrey Donaldson (63), with an address in Dromore, Co Down, is accused of 18 offences – one count of rape, four counts of gross indecency with or towards a child, and 13 counts of indecent assault on a female, on dates between 1985 and 2008. He denies the charges.
His wife, Eleanor Donaldson (60), of the same address, is charged with five counts of aiding and abetting in connection with the charges faced by her husband – charges she denies.
Eleanor Donaldson is not present in court as she has been ruled unfit to stand trial on the basis of medical evidence and will instead face a trial of the facts – which replaces a criminal trial in such circumstances.
On Friday morning, Jeffrey Donaldson was cross-examined by Walsh about the meeting in Armoy, about which Complainant B told police that Donaldson “came and apologised to me ... he apologised for what he’d done to me in the past”.
Walsh put it to Donaldson that the reason he needed to attend the meeting was because the minister “was going to talk about a very sensitive matter”.
“If you’re saying the reason I needed to meet was because I was worried he was going to tell me something harmful, that’s not the case,” Donaldson replied.
“That’s exactly what I’m saying,” the barrister said. “You had to go on the offensive to deal with it ... you go precisely because you’re worried.”
“No,” Donaldson replied.
Questioning him about the discussion during the meeting, Walsh said the evidence to the court from David Hoy, and his wife Linda – both of whom were present – was that “you asked for forgiveness”.
“I did not use the word forgiveness ... I didn’t say that,” Donaldson said, adding, “they [the Hoys] are good people”.
“Good people who wouldn’t come to court and make things up?” the prosecution barrister asked.
“I am not saying that. Some people remember things better ... I am simply saying my recollection of the meeting,” Donaldson said.
The prosecution barrister put it to him that on Thursday, Donaldson had suggested during cross-examination that the reason for Complainant B’s claim in the late 1990s was “I’m on the up and up as an aspiring member of parliament, maybe she resents that”, and asked what he thought had motivated her to go to the police in 2024.
“I don’t know the reason. It seemed [Complainants B and A] talked quite a bit and decided to go to the police.”
“Because it’s true?” the prosecution barrister asked.
“I’ve said very clearly, the allegations that have been made are untrue,” Donaldson replied.
On Friday afternoon Donaldson was questioned by Walsh about the letter he wrote to Complainant A in 2020 which she regarded as “an apology ... he was trying to apologise for perhaps the abuse that had occurred” but which Donaldson told the jury trial was about “infidelity”.
Walsh asked him about the language used in the letter, in which he described himself as a “sinner” with a “sinful nature” who needed to be lifted from “a deep pit of sin” and the “deep wounds” he said he had caused.
Donaldson responded that Christianity’s “starting point” was that “we all have a sinful nature ... that’s what I was referring to.”
“We might all be sinful, but we’re not all in a deep pit of sin,” the prosecution barrister replied, and asked if the letter was “about far more, it’s about sexual abuse”.
“No, it’s not,” Donaldson replied.
The barrister put it to the defendant that Complainant A was “a woman of faith ... not somebody to make things up or tell lies”.
“I’ve already answered that,” Donaldson said, adding that in regard to one alleged incident, they had “different views of that” and the others “did not happen”.
Walsh asked if he had written the letter to seek Complainant A’s “forgiveness”.
“I’m not writing to [Complainant A] to seek forgiveness for sexual abuse,” Donaldson said.
The trial continues.
