A disgraced former Tory MP today lost an appeal against the publication of a family court judgment in which he was found to have raped his estranged wife, physically abused her and subjected her to ‘a pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour’.
Andrew Griffiths, 51, was the MP for Burton in Staffordshire from 2010 until 2019, when he stood down after it was revealed he sent over 2,000 texts ‘of a sexual and violent nature’ to two young women shortly after the birth of his first child.
Kate Griffiths, 50, who was elected to represent Burton after they separated, alleged in proceedings concerning their infant child that the former minister was verbally and physically abusive during their relationship and also pressured her to engage in sexual activity.
Judge Sue Williscroft found Andrew Griffiths had assaulted his estranged wife on a number of occasions, including ‘trying to strangle her’, and that ‘he did rape her when sexual intercourse took place when he had already penetrated her when she was asleep’.
In July, Mrs Justice Lieven authorised the publication of Williscroft’s judgment, subject to limited redactions, ruling that ‘there is a significant public interest in issues concerning domestic abuse and how it is dealt within the family courts being openly discussed and debated’.
Lieven also noted the ‘very unusual’ fact that both Kate Griffiths – who waived her statutory right to anonymity – and the children’s guardian supported publication of the judgment. ‘The findings will have a very material impact on [the child’s] contact with the father, and doubtless with their on-going relationship,’ Lieven concluded. ‘However, that is not a product of publication, but rather of the father’s behaviour as found by the judge.’
Andrew Griffiths challenged that decision at the Court of Appeal, arguing that Williscroft’s judgment should be published but with his and his estranged wife being anonymised and with additional redactions.
However, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and allowed the publication of its judgment, as well as those of both Williscroft and Lieven.
Giving the judgment of the court, Dame Victoria Sharp – sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby – said the criticisms of Lieven’s decision ‘amount to little more than disagreement with the conclusions at which she arrived’. ‘We do not think it can fairly be argued that Lieven J’s conclusion, in the unusual circumstances of this case, was wrong,’ Sharp said. ‘On the contrary, we consider that she was clearly right.’
She added: ‘We should mention one of the reasons for the grant of permission to appeal in this case which was that an appeal might provide the court with a suitable opportunity to provide further guidance on the publication of judgments in cases of this kind.’
‘We also note that some of the issues raised may come under consideration in the process of implementing the president of the family division’s transparency review, which is currently under way, and, which could provide a possible opportunity, if it were considered appropriate, for more to be said about such matters,’ Sharp said.
After the ruling, Kate Griffiths’ barrister Charlotte Proudman from Goldsmith Chambers said on Twitter: ‘No more silencing.’
Journalist and open justice campaigner Louise Tickle, who applied for the judgment to be published, said the public interest in reporting the facts was overwhelming.
'Despite a push for much greater transparency in the family justice system, I think publishing names of people involved a family court will only rarely be justified on public interest grounds. The very particular constellation of facts in this case, including Andrew Griffiths' former role as MP and minister, the sexting scandal which was already in the public domain, and the young age of his child, combined with fast growing public outrage at the way powerful men abuse women, were all important factors in the judge weighing up the public interest against possible risk of harm to the child.'
