Several Conservative MPs will be temporarily suspended from the Commons and told to apologise after being found to have tried to influence a judge presiding over the trial of a former colleague for sexual assault. The one-day ban from parliament was handed down by the standards committee to backbenchers Sir Roger Gale, Theresa Villiers and Natalie Elphicke – the then partner of Charlie Elphicke, who was given two years in prison after being found guilty of three counts of sexual assault. Two other Tory MPs – Adam Holloway and Bob Stewart – were ordered to make a statement apologising for their behaviour in the chamber, with all five found to have threatened to undermine public trust in the independence of the judicial system. The politicians sent a letter to senior judges in November 2020 before a hearing on the release of pre-sentencing character references for Charlie Elphicke. They used parliamentary-headed and taxpayer-funded Commons stationery to write to Dame Kathryn Thirlwall, the senior presiding judge for England and Wales, and Dame Victoria Sharp, the president of the Queen’s Bench Division, also copying in Mrs Justice Whipple, who had heard the trial of Elphicke and was due to decide on the application to release the character references. The MPs wrote to “express concern” about the hearing, arguing a decision to disclose the references would be a “radical change to judicial practice” that “could have the chilling effect and harm the criminal justice system”. After they received a response the following day from the office of the lord chief justice of England and Wales saying the intervention was “improper” and disregarded the “separation of powers” between politicians and the judiciary, the five MPs wrote back on 22 November insisting they had not meant to “challenge your authority”. In a report published on Wednesday, the standards committee said the letters had been disregarded but the MPs had still sought to influence the outcome of the hearing and “risked giving the impression that elected politicians can bring influence to bear on the judiciary, out of public view and in a way not open to others”. It added: “Such egregious behaviour is corrosive to the rule of law and, if allowed to continue unchecked, could undermine public trust in the independence of judges.” The greater sanction of suspension was only imposed on some MPs because they either had “substantial legal experience” or were still refusing to acknowledge they had done anything wrong, with the committee saying they “should have known better”. It concluded the politicians had breached the MPs’ code of conduct, which says they should not damage the reputation and integrity of the Commons or those elected to it. Villiers said she was “very sorry” and admitted the correspondence “was not appropriately drafted and it was wrong of us to send it”. Natalie Elphicke apologised and said she had been wrong to question whether a different judge should have heard the application to release the character references. Gale, Holloway and Stewart gave a joint response, denying having tried to “influence the court of a live case” and saying they had only been trying to block the references being released to the press, given they contained “confidential and private information”. They argued they had in fact “enhanced the reputation of the house for taking proportionate, timely and appropriate action under difficult, sensitive and pressing circumstances” and added they saw “no case” for being forced to apologise.