MORE details have emerged of the night that saw Tory MSP Miles Briggs accused of sexual harassment by an SNP worker.

The shadow health secretary was cleared by an internal party hearing yesterday, but Rape Crisis Scotland, who represent the complainant, say they have serious doubts about the robustness of the inquiry.

Reports in the Times say that an SNP worker had originally accused Briggs of putting his head between her breasts, draping himself over her and making lewd sexual comments.

The two had been in a heated discussion about the rape clause at a house party in Edinburgh, following a reception at the French consulate.

Briggs said that his life had become a “living hell” after the allegations and admitted that he had left the party calling the “complainant” a crazy bitch, but he insisted he never sexually harassed the woman.

At least one other SNP staff member gave statements supporting Briggs’s version of events.

On the day of the alleged incident, politicians and party staff had attended a reception at the consulate in Edinburgh after a rugby match between the Scottish and French parliaments. Guests then drifted off to a house party.

The woman claimed Briggs “draped himself” over her at the reception, pinned her against a wall, caressed her hair and made lewd comments about her state of arousal.

According to his version of events, the woman had sought him out at the reception and started an argument about the rape clause policy which limits child tax credit to the first two children with an exemption clause for “non-consensual” conception.

Briggs said she continued berating him about the policy over the course of the night before he lost patience, called her a “crazy bitch”, and went home.

The panel found his account “more probable”.

A witness also said that the complainant had originally claimed that Briggs had “motorboated” her — vigorously rubbed his face between her breasts — shortly after the alleged incident, but that she had then not included that allegation in her final account.

An SNP staff member gave evidence in person on behalf of Briggs and eight other witnesses backed his account.

The panel considered written evidence from the complainant and two people who supported her account. They refused to take part in the hearing as it would mean being cross examined by Briggs.

After the two-hour hearing Briggs said: “The allegations are completely false. I was able to supply the party’s disciplinary committee with several witness statements from individuals who were with me the entire evening and which not only challenged but contradicted these allegations and events that evening. I am especially grateful to the SNP parliamentary researchers who were among those who supported my case.”

Sandy Brindley from Rape Crisis Scotland was furious about the process.

“This is why women are reluctant to come forward with sexual harassment complaints,” she said. “The woman is this case faced a process which was intimidating and inappropriate.

“She was asked to attend a hearing, without representation, to be questioned by the MSP she had made the complaint about.

“When we raised concerns about this, the Conservative party offered for her to be ‘cross examined’ by the chairman, who would put Mr Briggs questions to her, along with questioning from the rest of the committee.

“We pointed out repeatedly that an adversarial approach such as this was not appropriate in a case of this nature.”

The charity boss said they had “such significant concerns about the process being followed” that they advised the complainant and her two witnesses not attend the hearing.

Brindley added: “The fact that the Scottish Conservatives issued a press call for journalists to interview Miles Briggs about his reaction to the outcome of today’s hearing, prior to the hearing even starting, raised significant concerns for us about whether the woman in this case ever had any possibility of justice.”

The complainer said: “I'm gutted that Miles has been found to have done nothing wrong. I'm sad and angry that the process was so terrible that it felt as though this end result was written from very early on.

I want to focus on changing the process so anyone in future can have confidence that someone's power will not protect them and that they will be treated better than I have been."