MP Claudia Webb loses appeal
Evidence of a woman’s sexual affair with MP Claudia Webbe’s partner has given the politician a motive for harassment and not a defence.
Webbe, 57, allegedly branded Michelle Merritt a ‘slag’, threatened to throw acid at her and said she would post naked photos of her to her family.
When the now-independent MP for Leicester East was convicted of harassment last November the court did not hear that Ms Merritt and the politician were both having a sexual relationship with Lester Thomas.
Webbe had waged the campaign of harassment after becoming suspicious of Ms Merritt’s relationship with her partner, a Chelsea FC scout.
He had dated Ms Merritt some 15 years ago, but magistrates did not hear that Ms Merritt was still having sex with Thomas in a ‘friends with benefits relationship.’
Webbe launched her appeal against conviction at Southwark Crown Court last week in front of Judge Deborah Taylor, sitting with magistrates.
Susannah Stevens, for the Crown, said Ms Merritt’s fresh confession of engaging in sexual relations with Mr Thomas while he was with Webbe undermines the MP’s appeal.
Of Ms Merritt’s new evidence, Ms Stevens said: ‘All of that…is relevant solely as to credibility because actually it could be said that what was going on between Michelle Merritt and Lester Thomas is actually unhelpful to the appellant’s case.
‘Because Claudia Webbe’s suspicions as to all of that provide her not with a defence but with a motivation.’
Webbe told the court yesterday that she had ‘suspicions’ about them but did not know they were engaging in sex.
‘At the time of the lockdown I may have started to begin to think that something was not right but apart from that I had no idea that they were anything more than friends,’ she said.
Ms Stevens said people are not always ‘completely forthcoming’ with information about a sexual relationship.
‘It doesn’t automatically follow that if you haven’t been forthcoming of sexual relations…that means that you have been untruthful and have lied about the acts of harassment.’
The court was reminded of the recorded phone conversation between Webbe and Ms Merritt in April 2020 in which the politician yelled nine times down the phone: ‘Get out of my relationship.’
In the call, played to the court on the first day of appeal, Webbe also said: ‘I have seen all of your posts, I have seen all of your naked pictures. I have seen all of your relationship with Lester.’
‘Get out of my relationship, otherwise I will tell your whole family and show them all of your pictures.’
Ms Stevens said this was a significant piece of ‘corroborative and supporting evidence’ which can make the panel ‘sure’ that Webbe harassed Ms Merritt on 25 April 2020.
The barrister added that the call made clear Webbe’s ‘animus and ill feeling’ towards Ms Merritt.
Webbe earlier told the court that the threats to expose intimate images was directed at her then-boyfriend, Mr Thomas, who she was arguing with simultaneously.
Ms Stevens said the recording lends ‘particular support’ to the allegation that there was a similar incidence of harassment via a phone call made to Ms Merritt on Mothers’ Day 2019, 31 March.
It is alleged that, during this conversation, Webbe called Ms Merritt a ‘slag’, threatened to send naked images of her to her family and threatened to throw acid on her.
Ms Merritt reported the call to the police the same day.
Yesterday, Webbe denied ever making such a call or delivering such threats.
Ms Stevens said: ‘It is beyond a coincidence that the same words are said and the fact that Michelle Merritt made that call to the police at the time is strong supporting evidence so that you can be sure that there was harassment on at least two occasions.
‘The appellant’s case that it’s a completely false allegation, it is submitted, is undermined by that 999 call on the same day.’
Turning to Webbe’s evidence, Ms Stevens said: ‘Her answers did not ring true and were not credible.’
She added: ‘Did Claudia Webbe telephone Michelle Merritt when she knew that she shouldn’t?
‘Were there silent calls that caused Michelle Merritt to feel concerned and alarmed and distressed?
‘Did she make a threat on Mothers’ Day?
‘Did she repeat one aspect of that threat namely the showing of naked images on the 25 April 2020 to Michelle Merritt as opposed to Mr Thomas?
‘Our submission is that the extent of the other evidence which is either agreed or which in our submission has not been undermined through cross examination is such that you can be sure that there were at least two acts that amounted to harassment.’
Webbe entered the Commons in December 2019, winning the seat formerly held by Keith Vaz, the Labour veteran who retired from Parliament in the wake of a scandal.
She was a councillor in Islington between 2010 and 2018 and was a member of Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee.
Earlier in her career, she was a political adviser to the then-London mayor Ken Livingstone.
Webbe, of Islington, London, denied but was convicted of one count of harassment, between 1 September 2018 and 26 April 2020.
Helen Law, for Webbe, called Ms Merritt ‘a good actress’ who lied to make Webbe seem ‘unhinged’ to aggravate the case against her.
At the very beginning of her closing speech, Ms Law says of Ms Merritt: ‘It is plain that she did lie.’
Ms Law said she lied about issues ‘at the heart of this case’.
‘It is my submission that she lied not only to you but she has lied on every occasion that she has given an account of the incidents.’
Ms Law said the ‘most obvious’ of Ms Merritt’s lies was about the sexual nature of her relationship with Mr Thomas.
‘There were five occasions before she gave evidence to this court when Michelle Merritt, as a minimum, had the opportunity to record in her account that she was having sex with Mr Thomas.’
Ms Law said that the confession was made after the police downloaded and disclosed the contents of Ms Merritt’s phone to Webbe’s defence team.
This meant that Ms Merrit ‘knew she would have to admit’ her sexual relationship with the MP’s then-boyfriend, the court heard.
‘Her accounts on every occasion prior to that were lies.’
Ms Merritt had told the court, both during the trial and the appeal, that she was a woman ‘in fear’ of Webbe’s behaviour.
Webbe’s barrister disputed this.
Reading from the victim impact statement Ms Merritt delivered at Webbe’s sentencing in November 2021, Ms Law said: ‘This whole incident has caused me to stop my relationship with Lester Thomas.
‘He was a close friend of mine and Claudia has caused me to stop my friendship.’
The court heard today that months before the sentencing, Ms Merritt went to the police station to sign the statement in which those assertions were made.
Ms Law said that before she headed off to the police station to do so,
Ms Merritt texted Mr Thomas: ‘Is that it? You really have been whipped?’
‘She is the one trying to reignite that relationship,’ Ms Law said.
‘She is not in fear.
‘And within days they are where they were before, having sex, sex chats, meeting up.
‘The only reason it ends is not because Michelle Merritt is in fear but because of the escalation of the police investigation in the middle of July.’
Ms Law added that Ms Merritt’s lies were ‘intended to aggravate’ allegations against Webbe.
She urged the panel to be ‘careful’ in relying on anything Ms Merritt has said.
‘Ms Merritt is also a good actress when she wants to be.
‘The fact that other people may have thought she appeared to be in fear does not take anything any further.’
Turning to the recorded phone call of 25 April 2020, Ms Law said her client was ‘broken’ at the time.
She reminded the court that Webbe has apologised for her tone and her anger during that conversation.
‘She explained that Mr Thomas was physically coming at her…and that she was very distressed.’
The MP’s neighbours are said to have phoned police that evening reporting screams from Webbe’s flat.
One neighbour told police they heard Webbe say: ‘Let go of me.’
The same resident told the operator: ‘I have never known her to do this before.’
Ms Law said: ‘This is an extreme day in Claudia Webbe’s life.’
Comparing the content of the recorded call to what Webbe is accused of telling Ms Merritt in their alleged conversation on Mothers’ Day 2019,
Ms Law said her client did not use slang, did not refer to body parts and did not threaten to throw acid in April 2020.
These were all features of the Mothers’ Day call according to what Ms Merritt has reported.
Webbe told the court yesterday that she has never sworn in her life.
She explained this was due to her religious upbringing and family background of the Caribbean Island Nevis, where it is a crime to swear.
‘But Michelle Merrit did not know that,’ Ms Law said.
‘It simply does not fit with that 25 April call.
‘If ever there was a moment where Claudia Webbe was going to go beyond what she normally, or indeed ever did, it was that moment.
‘It is a very strong piece of evidence to show that this course of conduct alleged by Michelle Merritt simply did not happen.’
Webbe lost the appeal against her conviction for harassment.
Sat at the back of court in a black blazer and skirt, Webbe showed no emotion upon hearing the decision.
Judge Taylor said: ‘Claudia Webbe pursued a course of conduct which amounted to harassment.’
The panel said Ms Merritt was an ‘unsatisfactory witness’ who had ‘told lies’ about her relationship with Mr Thomas but accepted parts of her evidence.
The judge went on: ‘We are also sure that Claudia Webbe made silent calls to Michelle Merritt prior to 11 October 2018.
‘We are sure that on 31 March 2019, Mothers’ Day, Claudia Webbe called Michelle Merritt and in the course of the call threatened to show naked pictures of her to her daughters.
‘However we are not sure that acid was mentioned during the call.’
Ms Merritt said that the MP had told her: ‘You should be acid’.
Referring to this, judge Taylor continued: ‘This is a peculiar construction…in our view indicative of a misunderstanding.
‘Claudia Webbe did not make the threat to throw acid over her.
‘Nonetheless we are sure that the threat about disclosure of pictures…was made.’
The panel were sure that all of the calls in the schedule were made by the MP and were silent.
They also rejected Webbe’s evidence that some calls were made by her boyfriend, Mr Thomas, using her phone.
‘We conclude that she made these calls herself to alarm or distress Michelle Merritt to get her to stop her relationship with Lester Thomas which we find she knew about or suspected about.’
Moving on to the call on 25 April 2020, the judge told the court that the panel rejected Webbe’s explanations.
‘We reject Claudia Webbe’s contention that she was talking to Lester Thomas when she made this threat.
‘We are sure that Michelle Merritt was alarmed or distressed by the course of conduct.’
But the judge found that Ms Merritt was not as distressed as she had claimed.
Webbe entered the Commons in December 2019, winning the seat formerly held by Keith Vaz, the Labour veteran who retired from Parliament in the wake of a scandal.
She was a councillor in Islington between 2010 and 2018 and was a member of Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee.
Earlier in her career, she was a political adviser to the then-London mayor Ken Livingstone.
Webbe, of Islington, London, denied but was convicted of one count of harassment, between 1 September 2018 and 26 April 2020.
Her appeal against conviction was dismissed.
Webbe’s sentence was substantially reduced following her three day appeal hearing at Southwark Crown Court.
Last November the shamed MP was sentenced to 10 weeks jail suspended for two years with a 200 hour unpaid work requirement. She had been ordered to pay £2,000 in costs and £1,000 to Ms Merritt in compensation.
But Judge Taylor replaced that sentence with a ‘low level community order’ in which Webbe must complete 80 hours of unpaid work.
She has already completed 150 hours, the court heard.
Judge Taylor reduced the £1,000 of compensation to just £50, so the sum of £950 already paid would be returned to Webbe.
The judge said: ‘The relationship between Michelle Merritt and Mr Thomas clearly caused you great anxiety.
‘Exacerbated by lockdowns and your concern by breaking of lockdown regulations.
‘In the circumstances we consider that the new evidence sheds new light on the nature and extent of your offending.
‘Had the magistrates known about the additional evidence we have heard we have no doubt that the sentence would have been different.’
She added that Ms Merritt’s statement during sentencing last year, in which she said that Webbe’s actions have affected her friendship with Mr Thomas, were not true.
‘We find that the appropriate sentence would have been a low level community order which is what we impose – 80 hours.
‘You have already done 150 hours and that means therefore there is no requirement to carry out any further work.
‘We also find that as far as compensation is concerned that should be a compensation of £50.’
Earlier Ms Law told the court: ‘Much of the abuse that the appellant has received has been racist.’
She added that the conviction has had a ‘devastating impact’ on Webbe’s career.
‘A career she has pursued in true public spirit for 40 years.’
Citing ‘extensive and unusual’ mitigating features, Ms Law added: ‘There is in this case realistically no prospect of the appellant’s reoffending.’
