TORY defector Natalie Elphicke has been accused of lobbying the justice secretary in 2020 to interfere in her then-husband’s criminal sex offences trial.
Sir Robert Buckland has said the MP who has now crossed the floor to Labour approached him when he was lord chancellor and justice secretary before the hearing of Charlie Elphicke’s case.
She allegedly told Buckland 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, The Sunday Times reported.
READ MORE: Glasgow Labour councillor quit in sleaze probe over contract for son
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.
Buckland rejected her plea, suggesting his intervention could undermine the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers between Parliament and the judiciary.
The Tory MP told The Sunday Times: “She was told in no uncertain terms that it would have been completely inappropriate to speak to the judge about the trial at all.”
Elphicke’s former husband and predecessor as MP for Dover was later convicted of sexually assaulting two women and jailed for two years.
She ended the marriage after his conviction but supported his unsuccessful appeal, saying Elphicke had been “attractive, and attracted to women” and “an easy target for dirty politics and false allegations”.
Elphicke (above) allegedly also tried to secure him better prison conditions, asking for more comfortable pillows, The Sunday Times reported.
The new Labour MP denies the characterisation of the meeting with Buckland and that she asked for improved jail conditions.
A spokesman for Elphicke told the newspaper: “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.”
A Labour Party spokesman said: “Natalie 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.”
Following news of 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”.
There was further Tory briefing against Elphicke in The Observer, which was told by party sources that she quit the Conservatives because she was “bitter” about being denied a ministerial job in charge of housing policy.
Elphicke was enraged at being rejected first by Liz Truss (below) when she entered Downing Street in 2022 and then again by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, the newspaper reported.
Announcing her decision to switch parties, Elphicke hit out at Sunak’s “tired and chaotic government” and accused him of failing to deliver on his promise to “stop the boats,” adding that Labour would “bring a much better future for our country”.
Sir Keir Starmer faced questions over where he would draw the line with welcoming right-wing politicians into his party.
On a joint visit to Dover alongside his newest MP, the Labour leader said politics should be “less tribal” and suggested he was open to “reasonably minded people” from other parties joining Labour.
Elphicke has been contacted for comment.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel