A complainant told the court she viewed a letter from Jeffrey Donaldson as an apology for years of alleged abuse, a point disputed by defence counsel during proceedings at Newry Crown Court.
The trial of Sir Jeffrey Donaldson continued at Newry Crown Court as the defence and prosecution clashed over the meaning of a letter the former DUP leader sent to one of his accusers. The document, which expressed regret for causing pain and distress, was described by the woman as a form of apology for long-term alleged mistreatment.
The defence, however, told jurors the correspondence was unrelated to sexual misconduct allegations and instead addressed other conduct.
The proceedings centre on multiple charges including rape, gross indecency and indecent assault, spanning an alleged period between 1985 and 2008 and involving two complainants.
Sir Jeffrey has entered a plea of not guilty to 18 counts. The trial also involves Mrs Eleanor Donaldson, who faces a separate hearing of the facts after being deemed unfit to stand trial on mental health grounds; that process will assess evidence but cannot produce a criminal conviction.
Dispute over the 2026 letter
Under cross-examination, the woman identified in court as Complainant A said she believed the 2026 letter in which Donaldson wrote he “truly regret[s] all the hurt, pain and distressed I have caused” was an apology that referenced abuse spanning years. She described the tone of the letter as laden with guilt and a request for forgiveness, asserting that while the note did not specifically mention sexual acts, its implications were clear to her.
Defence counsel Kieran Vaughan KC challenged that interpretation, asking why the letter had not been provided to police when the complainant was first interviewed. The woman replied she had not been sure of its relevance at the time. Mr Vaughan told jurors the letter related to other matters and had “nothing to do” with the sexual assault allegations; the complainant insisted it was highly relevant to what she alleges happened to her.
Evidence and relevance
The exchange highlighted wider questions about how victims interpret communications from accused individuals. The complainant argued that an intelligent correspondent could avoid explicit admissions yet imply wrongdoing through tone and choice of words. The defence countered that implication is not evidence of admission of criminal behaviour and urged jurors to treat the note in context with other material.
Accounts of alleged incidents
Much of the hearing has focused on detailed recollections of alleged episodes, including contact when the complainant was a child. Under questioning, Complainant A reiterated her assertion that on multiple occasions Donaldson touched her breasts during her primary school years. When pressed on whether contact occurred over clothing or skin-to-skin, she stated that on one or two occasions the touching was over a bra but that most instances were “skin on skin.”
The defence drew attention to a police note in which a different officer recorded the phrase “touching over clothing,” suggesting an inconsistency with the complainant’s oral account to jurors. She accepted the written record if that reflected what was said, but stood by her testimony before the jury. On other incidents, including an allegation that Donaldson used a light to look at her genital area while perching over her, the complainant said the light was focused on that area; defence counsel told the court he believed she was confused.
Understanding and response to abuse
Mr Vaughan suggested a child would have known such contact was wrong; the complainant replied that recognition of abuse can be complex and that only later in life did she begin to piece together that some behaviours she had accepted were not normal. Her evidence aimed to convey how comprehension of abusive conduct can develop over time, and how memory and interpretation may evolve.
Courtroom atmosphere and next steps
The former Lagan Valley MP attended court in a dark grey suit and yellow tie, at times making notes while proceedings unfolded. The trial, expected to run several weeks, continues with further evidence and testimony to come. The judge overseeing Mrs Donaldson’s legal situation, while ruling her unfit to face a conventional jury trial, will preside over the limited hearing of the facts about whether there is evidence to support the claims against her.
Soon after the allegations surfaced, Sir Jeffrey resigned as leader of the Democratic Unionist Party and was suspended by the party. His resignation followed a period during which he had been central to restoring devolved government at Stormont. The criminal charges were brought later and remain contested; the jury will decide based on the evidence presented over the course of the trial.
