Natalie Elphicke says claims she lobbied justice secretary over ex-husband’s trial are ‘nonsense’
Accusations MP Natalie Elphicke lobbied the justice secretary in 2020 to interfere in her then-husband’s sex offences trial are “nonsense”, her spokesperson has said.
It is claimed the Dover MP, who recently defected from Conservative to Labour, approached Sir Robert Buckland when he was lord chancellor and justice secretary before the hearing of Charlie Elphicke’s case.
The Sunday Times reported that she allegedly told Sir Robert that it was unfair the case was the first to be heard at Southwark Crown Court after the COVID lockdown and that it was being overseen by Lady Justice Whipple.
One person present viewed her comments as a bid to have the case moved to a lower-profile court to spare her partner public scrutiny, while another saw it as an attempt to replace the senior judge, according to the newspaper.
Charlie Elphicke, pictured in 2020. Pic: PA
Sir Robert reportedly told the paper he rejected her plea, suggesting his intervention could undermine the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers between parliament and the judiciary.
“She was told in no uncertain terms that it would have been completely inappropriate to speak to the judge about the trial at all,” Sir Robert said in a statement.
In a statement responding to the claims, also published in The Mail on Sunday, a spokesman for Ms Elphicke said: “This is nonsense.
“It’s certainly true that Mr Elphicke continued to be supported after his imprisonment by a large number of Conservative MPs who had known him for a long time, including some who visited him and independently lobbied on his behalf, which was nothing to do with Natalie.”
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
A Labour Party spokesman said Ms Elphicke “totally rejects that characterisation of the meeting”.
“If Robert Buckland had any genuine concerns about the meeting, then he should have raised them at the time, rather than making claims to the newspapers now Natalie has chosen to join the Labour Party,” the spokesman said.
Sir Robert Buckland
Ms Elphicke’s former husband and predecessor as MP for Dover, Charlie Elphicke, was convicted in 2020 of sexually assaulting two women and jailed for two years.
She ended the marriage after his conviction but supported his unsuccessful appeal, saying Mr Elphicke had been “attractive, and attracted to women” and “an easy target for dirty politics and false allegations”.
Ms Elphicke allegedly also tried to secure him better prison conditions, asking for more comfortable pillows, The Sunday Times reported, something she also denied.
Read more from Sky News:
Natalie Elphicke apologises for supporting sex offender ex-husband
What happens when an MP defects to another party?
Following news of Ms Elphicke’s defection this week, Labour MPs raised concerns about the decision to admit her to the party, citing her comments about Mr Elphicke’s case and his victims.
In a statement on Thursday, she said she condemned “his behaviour towards other women and towards me”, adding it was “right that he was prosecuted” and she was “sorry for the comments that I made about his victims”.
Strategy’s Michael Saylor and BitMine’s Tom Lee are among 18 industry leaders who will look at ways to pass the BITCOIN Act and enable budget-neutral ways to buy Bitcoin.
The Fellowship PAC, launched in August, said it had “over $100 million” from unnamed sources to support the White House’s digital asset strategy.
Politics
Starmer was aware of the risks of appointing the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as his man in Washington – to an extent
It was a prescient and – as it turned out – incredibly optimistic sign off from Peter Mandelson after eight years as Chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University.
“I hope I survive in my next job for at least half that period”, the Financial Times reported him as saying – with a smile.
As something of a serial sackee from government posts, we know Sir Keir Starmer was, to an extent, aware of the risks of appointing the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as his man in Washington.
But in his first interview since he gave the ambassador his marching orders, the prime minister said if he had “known then what I know now” then he would not have given him the job.
For many Labour MPs, this will do little to answer questions about the slips in political judgement that led Downing Street down this disastrous alleyway.
Like the rest of the world, Sir Keir Starmer did know of Lord Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when he sent him to Washington.
The business secretary spelt out the reasoning for that over the weekend saying that the government judged it “worth the risk”.
Keir Starmer welcomes Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte to Downing Street.
Pic: PA
This is somewhat problematic.
As you now have a government which – after being elected on the promise to restore high standards – appears to be admitting that previous indiscretions can be overlooked if the cause is important enough.
Package that up with other scandals that have resulted in departures – Louise Haigh, Tulip Siddiq, Angela Rayner – and you start to get a stink that becomes hard to shift.
But more than that, the events of the last week again demonstrate an apparent lack of ability in government to see round corners and deal with crises before they start knocking lumps out of the Prime Minister.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Had I known then, what I know now, I’d have never appointed him’ Starmer said.
Remember, for many the cardinal sin here was not necessarily the original appointment of Mandelson (while eyebrows were raised at the time, there was nowhere near the scale of outrage we’ve had in the last week with many career diplomats even agreeing the with logic of the choice) but the fact that Sir Keir walked into PMQs and gave the ambassador his full throated backing when it was becoming clear to many around Westminster that he simply wouldn’t be able to stay in post.
The explanation from Downing Street is essentially that a process was playing out, and you shouldn’t sack an ambassador based on a media enquiry alone.
But good process doesn’t always align with good politics.
Something this barrister-turned-politician may now be finding out the hard way.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment11 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024