The judge finds that the former conservative minister raped and physically abused his wife

A family judge examining evidence in a private trial found that a former Conservative minister had raped and physically abused his wife.

Judge Elizabeth Williscroft concluded that Andrew Griffiths, 51, had pressured Kate Griffiths, the Conservative MP for Burton, Staffordshire, to engage in sexual activity and to use “coercive and controlling behaviour”.

Mr Griffiths, who was a former Burton MP and small business minister and once worked as Theresa May’s chief of staff, resigned in July 2018 after a Sunday newspaper reported he had sent “tainted” messages to two female constituents.

He reportedly bombarded a 28-year-old barmaid and her friend with offensive comments on social media for three weeks.

Judge Williscroft made findings on the balance of probabilities against Mr Griffiths in November 2020.

The judge had been overseeing a dispute between Mr and Mrs Griffiths, now divorced, over a child at private family court hearings in Derby.

Ms Griffiths, who is also 51, made a number of allegations against Mr Griffiths and asked Judge Williscroft to make findings of fact.

Mr Griffiths denied the allegations made by Ms Griffiths and “strongly denied” rape.

Judge Williscroft ruled in Ms Griffiths’ favour, but ruled that these findings should not be made public to protect the child at the center of the case.

A senior Supreme Court judge then ruled that Judge Williscroft’s findings should be disclosed, and Mr and Mrs Griffiths named themselves after two journalists, including one from the PA news agency, who had learned of the case and argued that the public should be a I have the right to know about it.

Ms Justice Lieven, who sits in the Family Division of the Supreme Court, heard the journalists’ request to be allowed to report on Justice Williscroft’s findings and to name Mr and Mrs Griffiths at a private hearing in London and ruled in their favour.

Mr Griffiths challenged Ms Justice Lieven’s decision and called on the Court of Appeal judges to review the case.

Three appeal judges dismissed his appeal on Friday and the findings of Judge Williscroft and Ms Justice Lieven could be made public.

Ms Griffiths had supported the journalists’ fight to be published and agreed to be named in media reports – even though victims of sexual abuse have a legal right to anonymity.

Mr Griffiths was against publication.

He argued that disclosing Judge Williscroft’s findings and publishing his name and Ms Griffiths’ name would harm the child at the center of the case and his relationship with the child.

Ms Justice Lieven ruled against Mr Griffiths but said the child at issue in the case should not be named in media reports.

“(Judge Williscroft) found that the father had physically abused the mother on more than one occasion,” Judge Lieven said in a written decision on the advertising arguments.

“The judge found that the father had used coercive and controlling behavior, including to pressure the mother to engage in sexual activity.

“The judge found that the father had raped the mother more than once.”

Ms Justice Lieven said she had balanced the media’s right to freedom of expression against the right to respect for family and private life.

She said she conducted an “intensive and fact-specific investigation” and concluded that Judge Williscroft’s findings should be made public.

“I accept that, given the specific facts of this case, there is a significant and legitimate public interest in the publication of the judgment, including the identification of the parties,” Judge Lieven said.

“The father held a prominent and influential position in the UK.

“Importantly, his role as an MP and minister meant he had a role in legislation, including on issues relating to domestic violence.

“The mere fact that he was an MP, let alone a minister, means that there is a strong public interest in the public knowing of a judge’s findings of conduct of the kind set out in the judgment.”

“The democratic system relies on the media being able to publish information about elected officials, especially when the information comes from findings of a court ruling.”

Ms Griffiths and Mr Griffiths separated after his resignation and became embroiled in a family dispute overseen by Judge Williscroft.

She had not filed a rape complaint with the police.

But she told Judge Williscroft that Mr Griffiths raped and abused her when they were married and when he was an MP, and asked Judge Williscroft to make findings.

Mr Griffiths “strongly” denied Ms Griffiths’ rape allegations.

He said he had “never had any form of non-consensual sexual contact.”

Ms Griffiths said she waived her right to anonymity because she was in a “unique position” to “work to improve the outcomes of such cases”.

In a written statement, Mr Griffiths said he was “deeply disappointed” that the court had allowed the proceedings to be published and “strongly denied” the allegations.

Read more

John Lewis is pulling the “Lollita” party dress for children off the shelves

Tighter restrictions “could help prevent up to 75,000 Omicron deaths”

UK Covid news live: New Covid measures recommended as 30% of London cases now Omicron