FORMER Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke might be guilty of being a bad husband and for being “foolish”, but it does not mean he sexually assaulted two women, a court heard.
The 49-year-old father-of-two denies three counts of sexual assault, on women in their early 30s and early 20s, almost a decade apart.
But he acknowledged he had cheated on his wife with another woman and said he propositioned one of the complainants in this case during his marriage to Natalie Elphicke, his successor as Dover MP since 2019.
His defence counsel, Ian Winter QC, told jurors at Southwark Crown Court that they may decide his client had behaved “foolishly”. But he said that did not make him a criminal.
Winter, in his closing speech yesterday, said: “You might think at the heart of this case lies a pretty ancient foolishness of husbands.
“He is on trial for sexually assaulting two women, that is the allegation.”
Elphicke denies groping the first complainant, a woman he invited to have a drink with him at his London home in 2007, while his wife was away for the first time since the birth of their young son.
The complainant described Elphicke kissing her, grabbing her breast and then chasing her chanting, “I’m a naughty Tory”.
He denies sexually assaulting her and chasing her around his house.
The second complainant, a young parliamentary worker, said Elphicke groped her breast following a drink in Westminster in April 2016.
The following month, Elphicke was said to have been in the company of the woman again when he slid his hand up her thigh towards her groin.
Both women said they were not attracted to Elphicke, who said he was not attracted to the woman in her 30s, but told jurors he “lost my head” over the parliamentary worker with whom he wanted a sexual relationship.
The women cannot be named for legal reasons. Winter described both complainants in the trial as “unreliable” and questioned whether the jurors could rely on their evidence.
In her closing speech on Thursday, prosecutor Eloise Marshall QC described Elphicke as “an accomplished liar”.
The case was adjourned until Monday when the judge Mrs Justice Whipple will begin her summing-up speech. She said jurors will begin their deliberations on Tuesday.
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