Donaldson repeatedly denied abuse of two alleged victims as he gave evidence on Friday at his trial over historical sex offences at Newry Crown Court.

His cross-examination has now finished after two days.

The 63-year-old has pleaded not guilty to 18 alleged offences.

The charges include one count of rape and allegations of indecent assault and gross indecency, and span a period between 1985 and 2008 involving two alleged victims.

Complainant A and B have both given evidence at the trial.

Both women allege they were abused as children.

Eleanor Donaldson, 60, from Dublinhill Road, Dromore, Co Down, denies several charges of aiding and abetting her husband’s alleged offending.

She is facing a trial of the facts on mental health grounds.

Prosecution barrister Rosemary Walsh KC put it to Jeffrey Donaldson that he had “hurt” both complainants in the case.

He said: “Absolutely not.” She said “honesty and truth” were at the centre of the evidence given by both women.

He said: “In relation to the allegations made against me, they are not true.” 

Ms Walsh said: “The only person telling lies is you, sinful and deceitful lies.” Donaldson responded: “Not true.” 

Earlier, the barrister had questioned Donaldson about the alleged sexual abuse of Complainant A, the younger of the two alleged victims.

She asked if the alleged sexual abuse of A had started when she was of primary school age.

Donaldson said: “That is absolutely not the case.” 

The barrister asked if the alleged abuse began with “touching outside of clothing”.

He said: “No, no, no.” 

She put it to him that he had put his tongue in A’s mouth on a number of occasions.

He said: “No.” 

Ms Walsh said: “When she did recoil, you laughed it off?” 

He said: “No.” The barrister asked: “She is lying about that?” 

Donaldson said: “Yes.” 

Ms Walsh then turned to an alleged incident the jury had previously heard about in which Complainant A claims Donaldson had used a light, possibly a torch, to look at her genitals.

The former politician had told police he was not doing “anything untoward”.

Donaldson said: “There was no issue of me looking at her genitals, shining a light on her genitals, absolutely nothing of that sort took place.” 

The barrister said: “You were looking at her genitals.” 

He responded: “No.” 

Donaldson added: “I was not shining a light in her eyes or on any other part of her body”.

Ms Walsh said: “You were caught in the act.” 

He said: “Absolutely not.” 

Donaldson also denied the barrister’s suggestion that he was “panicking”.

Ms Walsh asked about a letter he wrote to Complainant A in June 2020 in which he expressed “regret” for the “hurt, pain and distress” he had caused.

Donaldson has previously told the court the letter did not refer to allegations of sexual abuse but instead he was apologising for other behaviour.

Ms Walsh referred to the phrase “lift a sinner out of the deep pit of sin” within the letter.

She asked: “Are you a deceitful person Mr Donaldson?” 

He said: “Not by nature.” 

He added: “At its heart, Christianity starts from the starting point we are all sinful in nature.

“That is what I was referring to.” 

She said: “But we are not all in a deep pit of sin.” 

Donaldson said: “I am simply explaining to you the basis on which I wrote these words.” 

She read another part of the letter that stated: “I know how deep the wounds are caused by my sinful and selfish actions.” 

She suggested part of his letter is “about sexually abusing a child”.

He said: “That is not the case.” 

Ms Walsh said: “That is what the deep wounds are.” 

He said: “That is not the case.” 

Donaldson added: “I was not writing to seek forgiveness for sexual abuse.” 

Ms Walsh also cross-examined Donaldson about claims by Complainant B, the other alleged victim.

She referred to a phone call Donaldson received in the 1990s from David Hoy, the founder of the Christian Family Centre in Armoy.

The court has previously heard that Complainant B stayed at the centre in the 1990s after developing an issue with drugs.

The court has also been told that Complainant B had told a church pastor at the centre about the alleged abuse by the ex-MP and he introduced her to Mr Hoy and his wife, and a meeting with Donaldson was arranged.

The court has also heard Complainant B claim that Donaldson apologised to her at that meeting. He has said he was not apologising for any allegations of abuse.

The barrister asked Donaldson if he did not see “anything strange” about the approach from Mr Hoy.

Donaldson said: “I get lots of phone calls from people I have never met before in the course of my political work.” 

Ms Walsh suggested that he filtered his phone calls.

He said: “I don’t actually. I have given my phone number out to many people over the years.” 

He said it was “not unusual” for him to get a phone call from someone he had never met before.

Ms Walsh suggested Donaldson needed to meet Mr Hoy because “he was going to be talking to you about a sensitive matter”.

Donaldson said: “That is absolutely not true.” 

He said he had not tried to “avoid the meeting”, and was happy to meet Mr Hoy.

Ms Walsh said: “You had to go on the defensive to deal with this?” 

Donaldson said: “That is not true.” 

Ms Walsh pointed out that Mr Hoy’s evidence to the court was that an “allegation” had been made.

Donaldson said: “The word allegation was never mentioned to me.

“If it had been mentioned, I would have immediately asked what it was about.” 

Ms Walsh said: “You knew fine rightly what it was about.” 

Donaldson responded: “That is not true.” 

Ms Walsh asked if Mr Hoy had “made up” the evidence that an allegation had been made.

He said: “I am saying he is mistaken in his recollection.” 

Ms Walsh said Donaldson had attended the meeting in Armoy because he “knew this was something you needed to nip in the bud”.

He said: “That is not true at all.” 

Ms Walsh pointed out that before the meeting, Complainant B had first raised the allegations against Donaldson with the pastor.

He said: “I had no knowledge whatsoever of any of that.” 

Ms Walsh asked the former MP if the meeting had involved him apologising.

Donaldson said he had said he was “sorry if she felt uncomfortable”.

The barrister asked: “What were you apologising for?” 

He said: “That she felt uncomfortable.” 

Ms Walsh suggested Donaldson was “trying to find a reason why you apologised to her”.

He said: “Not at all.” 

He added: “I went to Armoy in good faith and I have faithfully relayed to you what the meeting was about.” 

Ms Walsh suggested Donaldson had “taken control” of the meeting.

He said: “No, not at all.” 

She said: “You went in there and said you knew what all this was about and you were truly sorry.” 

He said: “That is absolutely to misrepresent what happened at that meeting, that is not the case at all.” 

Ms Walsh suggested Donaldson did not want Complainant B “going through allegations”.

He said: “That is absolutely not true.” 

She said: “You shut her down?” 

Donaldson said: “I absolutely did not shut her down.” 

The barrister referred to evidence from Mr Hoy, where he said B was asked whether she wanted to “take it further”.

Ms Walsh suggested this referred to the police being called.

Donaldson said: “I do not recall that being said.” 

The trial will resume on Monday.