Tory MP accused of sexually assaulting two women appears in court
A suspended Tory MP accused of sexually assaulting two women at a private club in London will face trial next year.
Patrick Spencer, MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, allegedly cupped the breasts of two women over their clothes at the Groucho club in Soho. It is claimed to have happened in August 2023, before he became an MP.
A complaint was made to the club and a report made to police, and Spencer, 37, was interviewed by officers earlier this year. Spencer, who denies two counts of sexual assault, appeared at Southwark Crown Court this morning.
Prosecutor Polly Dyer told a previous hearing that the first woman "felt Mr Spencer put his arms under her arms" before he "cupped her breasts over the clothing". The woman had interacted with him earlier in the evening while he "seemed to be intoxicated", the court heard.
Of the second woman, the prosecutor said "he moved behind her and also cupped her breasts with his hands over clothing". Ms Dyer added that neither woman consented to the alleged touching.
Lawyers acting for the MP have previously said he "categorically denies the charges" against him, adding: "He has co-operated fully with the police investigation from the moment he became aware of it and he will defend the allegations robustly in court." Spencer's trial date was set for July 13 next year.
Judge Tony Baumgartner said his home address would continue to be withheld from the court while he considers the application. The politician, who lives in Suffolk, was suspended from the Conservative Party and had the whip withdrawn after the charges were brought.
Spencer was first elected to Parliament last year with a majority of 4,290. He previously worked in finance for private equity firm IPGL, a company chaired by his father, former Conservative Party treasurer Lord Michael Spencer.
He later took a job at the Centre for Social Justice think thank and then became a senior adviser at the Department for Education. He made his maiden speech in the Commons in July last year during a debate on the MPs' code of conduct relating to second jobs, during which he said the "most important thing to the people across my constituency" was "restoring a sense of moral probity and public spiritedness to our political system".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Workers may not get ‘day one' protection against unfair dismissal despite government pledge
Proposals to give new workers 'day one' protection against unfair dismissal has suffered a heavy defeat in the House of Lords on Wednesday. The defeat is a new blow for the government as the proposals were a Labour manifesto commitment. The House of Lords backed by 304 votes to 160, majority 144, a Conservative -led measure which would instead reduce the existing qualifying period for the workplace safeguard from two years to six months. It was the latest setback suffered by the Labour frontbench to its Employment Rights Bill in the upper chamber and puts peers on a collision course with the administration, given it was an explicit election pledge. The change will be considered by MPs when the draft law returns to the Commons during so-called 'ping-pong', when legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached. The proposed reforms also give workers other 'day one' rights, such as sick pay, paternity leave and the right to request flexible working. In addition, the Bill would introduce new restrictions on 'fire-and-rehire' processes when employees are let go and then re-employed on new contracts with worse pay or conditions. Business minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch told peers: 'This Government was elected on a manifesto to provide unfair dismissal protections from day one of employment. 'Not two years, not six months, but day one. 'To deliver this commitment we will remove the qualifying period for these rights.' She added: 'These amendments would not deliver on the Government's manifesto commitment to introduce a day one right against unfair dismissal, leaving many newly hired employees without robust employment protections.' However, Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'We are debating a change that will fundamentally alter the balance of risk in hiring, and at a time when unemployment has risen in every month this government has been in power.' He added: 'This clause will do nothing to promote fairness in the workplace. 'It will erode flexibility, it will choke opportunity, and it will harden the barriers that those on the margins already face.' He pointed out the Government's own impact assessment which said that introducing the day one right to claim unfair dismissal 'could damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire', including younger workers with less experience and ex-offenders. Lord Sharpe went on: 'The Government already knows and thinks this so why are they doing this? 'So I don't believe this clause is ready. I don't believe that it's safe, I don't believe that it's wise.' Independent crossbencher Lord Vaux of Harrowden said: 'With this Bill, the Government is knowingly and deliberately damaging the life chances of the most vulnerable, in particular young people trying to get their first step on the employment ladder, and for no apparent tangible benefit. 'I urge them to think again.' The Government was subsequently dealt a further blow as peers backed by 248 votes to 150, majority 98, a change to the legislation, proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which would force ministers to strengthen whistleblower protections.
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
MoD braced for £1billion compensation bill after 100k lives put at risk of Taliban death squads by Afghan leak scandal
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) DEFENCE chiefs are braced for a £1billion compensation bill over a data breach which revealed Afghans who supported UK forces. Around 100,000 were put at risk of Taliban death squads when their names or loved ones' were revealed in 2022 — with the blunder then 'covered up' by a UK gagging order. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 7 Evacuation of Afghans in 2021 after the Taliban took control - ahead of the Conservative Government's 2023 secret airlift, codenamed Operation Rubific Credit: Getty 7 The Taliban has stated it is actively hunting those revealed on the leaked list Credit: AP 7 Around 100,000 Afghans were put at risk of Taliban death squads when their names or loved ones' were revealed in 2022 Thousands could sue the MoD after the leak was made public this week. Almost 900 Afghans on the 'kill list' email leak are ready to sue — with lawyers saying thousands more are poised to join them. Legal sources claimed victims whose lives were endangered could be entitled 'to five-figure payouts'. Adnan Malik, at Manchester firm Barings Law, which is representing nearly 900, said: 'The victims have been exposed to not just financial harm, but the real threat of violence and death. In some cases, these threats have been tragically carried out. Monies claimed will vary substantially between claimants, we would expect sums upwards of five figures for each person affected.' That could see the overall compensation bill pass £1billion. The February 2022 leak was caused by a Special Forces soldier who accidentally shared a list of 18,714 people who had applied to flee to Britain in the wake of the 2021 Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. The list included their last-known locations, how they served British forces, and in some instances who supported their claims — including MPs, Special Forces and spies. The leak, which included details of a 'secret route' for some of those affected to come to the UK, was only discovered when excerpts were put on Facebook in August 2023. Taliban warns thousands of Afghans secretly airlifted to UK 'we will HUNT you down' The next month, the Tory government used a superinjunction to stop journalists reporting the breach. It was extended until being lifted by a High Court judge this Tuesday. A defence source said yesterday: 'People on that list had fought with British forces in Afghanistan. 'They fought against the Taliban. First of all we let the Taliban take over, and then when these people came to us for help we put their lives in even more danger.' The potential huge bill emerged as Nigel Farage claimed 'convicted sex offenders' are among the Afghans secretly airlifted into the UK. The Reform UK leader said the rescue of almost 20,000 Afghans is a risk to women's safety — triggering a row with Labour and the Tories. Defence Secretary John Healey insisted everyone had been checked 'carefully' for any criminal records. And he said if Mr Farage had any hard evidence, he should report it to police. Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride also said Mr Farage should provide evidence for his claims. PM Sir Keir Starmer said the previous Tory government had serious questions to answer over the leak. Hunting people down Sir Ben Wallace, Defence Secretary at the time, insisted there was not a cover-up and the gagging order was to protect at-risk Afghans, and he made 'no apology' for doing so. Sir Ben also said he applied for a four-month injunction and did not know why it was converted into a superinjunction in September 2023, when Grant Shapps had taken over as Defence Secretary. 7 The list contained the details of 20,000 Afghans whose country had been taken over by the Taliban Credit: Alamy 7 The leaked list also included the names of UK sponsors and MI6 spies who could have become targets of the Taliban in Afghanistan Credit: Getty Ex-Tory MP Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg said Mr Shapps had questions to answer. Mr Shapps has yet to comment. Meanwhile, Zia Yusuf, head of Reform's Department of Government Efficiency, has launched a petition calling for an independent, judge-led inquiry. He said: 'We want to know who made these decisions.' Lawyers insisted the injunction was necessary to protect the lives of people who were named and at risk of Taliban reprisals. It included hundreds of Afghan Special Forces who had served in units known as the Triples, alongside Britain's SAS and SBS. The Triples conducted thousands of night raids against senior Taliban leaders and counter-narcotics operations. Last night, Taliban sources claimed they have had the list for years — and had been hunting down those on it. A Taliban official said: 'We got the list from the internet during the first days when it was leaked. 'A special unit has been launched to find them and make sure they do not work with Britain. We've been calling and visiting their family members to track them down.' 7 The potential huge bill emerged as Nigel Farage claimed 'convicted sex offenders' are among the Afghans secretly airlifted into the UK Credit: PA 7 Defence Secretary John Healey insisted everyone had been checked 'carefully' for any criminal records Credit: PA In 2023, the Government launched a secret airlift, codenamed Operation Rubific, to smuggle around 4,500 people on the list to Britain. They are among 34,000 Afghans who have been offered new lives in Britain since the Taliban takeover. That number is expected to rise to 43,000 and the Government predicts the total cost will be £7billion. An MoD spokesman yesterday insisted a £1billion compensation bill was 'pure speculation'. He said: 'The Government inherited a deeply complex situation and since taking office, have taken appropriate action in line with the level of risk these individuals faced. 'We will do everything possible to defend against any compensation claims and any we do get, we will fight them hard.'
North Wales Chronicle
3 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Tory ex-ministers defend record after PM demands ‘answers' over Afghan data leak
Former immigration minister Robert Jenrick said he first learned of the data breach, which saw a defence official release details of almost 19,000 people seeking to flee Afghanistan, after a legal gagging order had been imposed. Ex-veterans minister Johnny Mercer claimed he had 'receipts' regarding the former Conservative administration's actions in relation to Kabul but said it was 'absurd' to accuse him of failing grasp the scale of crisis. 'I know who is covering their tracks, and who has the courage to be honest,' he said. 'I would caution those who might attempt to rewrite history.' Thousands of people are being relocated to the UK as part of an £850 million scheme set up after the leak, which was kept secret as the result of a superinjunction imposed in 2023 which was only lifted on Tuesday. At Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir insisted there would be scrutiny, which the Conservatives should welcome. 'Ministers who served under the party opposite have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen,' he told MPs. Former prime minister Liz Truss, who was foreign secretary at the time of the breach in February 2022, but a backbencher when the superinjunction was sought, said she was 'shocked' by the 'cover-up'. She said the revelations pointed to a 'huge betrayal of public trust' and 'those responsible in both governments and the bureaucracy need to be held to account'. Mr Mercer said: 'I've spilt my own blood fighting for a better Afghanistan, lost friends, fought to get operators out of the country and away from the Taliban, and visited hundreds of resettled families and hotels in the UK under direct commission from the previous prime minister after the schemes were dangerously failing. 'Others were with me in this process and we have all the receipts.' Shadow justice secretary Mr Jenrick said he had 'strongly opposed plans the plans to bring over 24,000 Afghan nationals' during 'internal government discussions in the short period before my resignation' in December 2023. 'I first learned of the data leak and plan to resettle people after the superinjunction was in place,' he said. 'Parliamentary privilege is not unlimited; I was bound by the Official Secrets Act.' Mr Jenrick said the secret scheme had been 'a complete disaster' and that the previous government 'made serious mistakes' but that 'thousands more (Afghan people) have come since Labour came to power.' 'Contrary to what some have suggested, the Afghan individuals I helped came on the Arap (Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy) scheme and had nothing to do with the subsequent ARR scheme caused by the data leak,' he added. Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has said the 'episode' raises 'significant constitutional issues'. Earlier on Wednesday, Downing Street declined to say what questions former ministers should face but said Sir Keir was 'angry' about the breach. Sir Keir's press secretary said: 'The Prime Minister is angry at such a terrible breach that had such grave consequences being allowed to happen. 'Which is why it's clear that there are questions that need to be answered by Conservative ministers who, in their own words, have talked about the ineptitude of the Conservative government at the time.' She also pointed to comments from Mr Mercer, who described the handling of the breach as 'farcical' and 'the most hapless display of incompetence by successive ministers and officials that I saw in my time in government'. The Commons Defence Committee will be setting out plans for an inquiry straight after the parliamentary recess in September. Chair, @TanDhesi has responded to the Secretary of State's statement on Afghanistan. — Defence Committee (@CommonsDefence) July 16, 2025 Committee chairman Tan Dhesi said: 'These shocking events now deserve proper, thorough parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that lessons are learned. 'I have consulted my cross-party colleagues on the Defence Committee and we all agree that this is work we intend to lead.' Tory former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes 'no apology' for applying for the initial injunction and insisted it was 'not a cover-up' but was motivated by the need to protect people in Afghanistan whose safety was at risk. A dataset of 18,714 who applied for Arap was released in February 2022 by a defence official who emailed a file outside authorised government systems. The Ministry of Defence only became aware of the blunder when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023, and a superinjunction was granted at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban from finding out about the leak. Then defence secretary Sir Ben said he had applied for a four-month standard injunction shortly before leaving office but, on September 1 2023, when Grant Shapps took the role, the government was given a superinjunction. Sir Ben said he did now know why the superinjunction was granted 'but nevertheless, I think the point here is I took a decision that the most important priority was to protect those people who could have been or were exposed by this data leak in Afghanistan, living amongst the Taliban who had no regard for their safety, or indeed potentially could torture them or murder them', he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. He also defended his actions in an article in the Daily Telegraph newspaper. 'I make no apology for applying to the court for an injunction at the time. It was not, as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover-up,' he said. The leak led to the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route – in April 2024. The scheme is understood to have cost about £400 million so far, with a projected final cost of about £850 million. A total of about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme. The key facts on the Afghan Resettlement data incident that took place in 2022, and the action we are taking to support those impacted. Defence Minister @LukePollard explains 👇 — Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) July 16, 2025 The official responsible for the email error was moved to a new role but not sacked. Defence Secretary John Healey said he was not going to 'lead a witch hunt after a defence official'. 'This is much bigger than the mistake of an individual,' he told the BBC. The superinjunction was in place for almost two years, covering Labour and Conservative governments. Kemi Badenoch has apologised on behalf of the Conservatives for the leak. 'On behalf of the government and on behalf of the British people, yes, because somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there … and we are sorry for that,' she told LBC. Between 80,000 and 100,000 people, including the estimated number of family members of the Arap applicants, were affected by the breach and could be at risk of harassment, torture or death if the Taliban obtained their data, judges said in June 2024. However, an independent review, commissioned by the Government in January 2025, concluded last month that the dataset is 'unlikely to significantly shift Taliban understanding of individuals who may be of interest to them'.
