Gransnet forums

News & politics

Former Conservative MP raped his wife, family court finds

(40 Posts)
Iam64 Fri 10-Dec-21 17:41:37

A family court judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that Andrew Griffiths raped, physically assaulted and coercively controlled his wife. The matter was before the Court because of his application for direct contact to a child.

He resigned as a minister in July 2018, after media reports he had sent ‘depraved’ messages to two women constituents. His ex wife asked for findings to be made. These weren’t made public at the time, November 2020. Subsequently, journalists made an application that the public interest would be served if the findings were made public, it succeeded.
Mr Griffiths appealed, it was dismissed by three appeal Judges last Friday.

Iam64 Mon 13-Dec-21 10:20:12

Woman’s Hour covering this now. Chilling evidence

Iam64 Sun 12-Dec-21 08:25:33

In criminal cases, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. If found guilty of rape and the other forms of abuse AG subjected his wife to, he would go to prison.

In civil cases, the standard is that the complainant must provide evidence that convinces the Court that the likelihood of the event is more likely than not. The Judge was convinced by the evidence before the Court, so reached the findings reported in the press.

To suggest that the Court found that AG ‘probably’ raped and abused his wife is legally incorrect. It also minimises the horror this woman was subjected to and her bravery in attempting to protect a child.

Granniesunite Sat 11-Dec-21 21:59:35

Yes she is an MP. A brave woman.

Galaxy Sat 11-Dec-21 21:57:24

I would Google again.

M0nica Sat 11-Dec-21 21:52:39

Cold I think you are mixing this guy up with Charlie Elphick, his wife (sorry, ex-wife) stood for his seat and won it after he had to stand down.

Charlie Elphick is no saint he was convicted of two sexual assaults but when compared with this with this sleaze ball. he has the advantage. He and his wife divorceded, but, as far as I can remember, no case in the family courts.

Andrew Griffiths wife is not an MP.

Cold Sat 11-Dec-21 20:51:52

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Bibbity Sat 11-Dec-21 19:52:07

I think his job is completely relevant.
Look at the character and history of the people who are serving our country. The Prime Minister doesn't know how many children he has!

This is one example of the disgusting class of people we have allowed to gain power and control.

FarNorth Sat 11-Dec-21 19:43:22

I expect the wording is 'probably' because the family court is not in a position to find him guilty.

I think it's important that this decision is publicised so that other women know that this precedent now exists.
As can often be seen on Mumsnet, some women are deterred from leaving an abusive partner because they fear what may happen when he has parental access visits with the children.

M0nica Sat 11-Dec-21 19:22:10

What is exceptional is that it was revealed at all. Remember, this all happened in the Family Court not the criminal court and in the Family Courts cases like this would normally be shrouded in secrecy, even when one of a couple has been accused as he has been. The judge who made the decision to release the details, felt he had to explain why he was going against Family Court precendent in doing so. This means that the original decision not to reveal and had nothing to do with him having been an MP or Minister. It was the revealing that was exceptional.

Minister or not, in his time, he would have been cast to the wolves once he was convicted (in the criminal courts,) in a previous case of depraved and lewd behaviour, so he would had no power or influence and no powerful friends left anyway.

Iam64 Sat 11-Dec-21 11:18:14

Legal terminology is set in Law.

Dinahmo Sat 11-Dec-21 10:47:42

Gwyneth

Here we go again!! Yes I agree Monica . What this man has done is despicable but his politics is irrelevant.

Do you not think that the details were not fully disclosed at first because he was a govt minister? So it's not a question of party politics.

Anniebach Sat 11-Dec-21 09:42:42

Mollygo I am not comfortable with ‘he probably did’ and the
headline ‘raped his wife’.

Rape is a criminal offence as is driving when drunk, we don’t
read ‘probably drunk’.

ElaineI Sat 11-Dec-21 09:37:45

I watched a programme about family courts (in England) and some of it was very distressing - children of all ages up to teenagers being dragged out their homes by police and social workers sometimes overnight usually removed from their mothers and family courts awarding custody to fathers who had often been abusive.
I am not a Tory and don't live in England but well done to the lady for speaking out. Doesn't matter what she does as a job really but in her position she is able to highlight what happened and happens. These courts are held in secret. Families less well known may be scared or less financially able to fight against it so it could help them I hope.

Mollygo Sat 11-Dec-21 09:32:52

Anniebach ‘balance of probabilities’ is a strange wording.
If he is guilty then well done to her for managing to bring a rape case to court and getting a successful verdict. It takes courage.
But a decision saying he probably did it is a bit odd.

eazybee Sat 11-Dec-21 09:18:13

Because she's a feminist and posts frequently on Male violence against women, his wife is a conservative mp.
I am being pedantic here, but it matters.

The interpretation of the sentence is that the former Mrs. Griffiths is a Conservative MP because she is a feminist and posts frequently on male violence.
I don't think that was the intended meaning.

Anniebach Sat 11-Dec-21 09:05:37

Headline is raped his wife. Followed by balance of probability ,

so, he probably raped his wife ?

Iam64 Sat 11-Dec-21 08:59:04

His wife didn’t make a report to the Police. If she had, the criminal case would have to be concluded before the Family Court concluded with Findings.
It’s not unusual for allegations of domestic abuse, including sexual abuse not to be prosecuted. Successful prosecution of rape is frighteningly rare.

Galaxy Sat 11-Dec-21 08:55:41

I must admit that I am unclear of the legal implications of the family courts decision. Why is he not in prison? Does it now go to criminal proceedings. I have found the reporting a bit unclear or I may be being a bit dense.

Iam64 Sat 11-Dec-21 08:43:58

Are some posters seriously suggesting I used the media headlines, or started this discussion because I’m no fan of the current Conservative government?

I was hoping for a discussion on the significant issues raised by this case. It’s rare for a Family Court Judgement to be made public, that’s news worthy.

The Family Court Found on the balance of probability that Mr G Perpetrated rape/coercive control/physical abuse against his wife over a long period His status as an MP is relevant because of the power and influence MP’s hold. His behaviour towards two female constituents is already in the public domaine, he denied that as well. It’s, irrelevant which party he represents.
Is no one going to suggest it’s worth discussing the balance of probability v beyond reasonable doubt?

Whitewavemark2 Sat 11-Dec-21 07:07:04

Quite frankly the criticism seems like unnecessary point scoring and an irrelevance.

A former Tory MP raped his wife. He belonged to a political party that promotes (or did) family values. Who voted on domestic violence.

A persons employment is part of their identity, particularly if their employment puts them into a relative position of power.

Lucca Sat 11-Dec-21 06:59:08

Gwyneth

Here we go again!! Yes I agree Monica . What this man has done is despicable but his politics is irrelevant.

Of course butOP was NOT. Making a political point just as I said identifying the man, as per other headlines.

Very unfair attack on Iam64.

welbeck Sat 11-Dec-21 05:36:43

the OP didn't read like that to me.
it is taking a headline from the news and commenting on it.
had it been an unknown bus driver or accountant, it is unlikely that any of us would know of it, as family court proceedings are not reported, or at least not in a way that identifies the parties.
this one was only reported because the press sought special permission to do so, and part of that reason was that he is/was a public person.
and had form for anti-women behaviour.
so maybe it serves as a warning to other women who may come across him.

Galaxy Sat 11-Dec-21 01:17:53

Sorry Iam64 I know you can speak for yourselfgrin.

Galaxy Sat 11-Dec-21 01:12:56

Because she's a feminist and posts frequently on Male violence against women, his wife is a conservative mp.

M0nica Sat 11-Dec-21 01:05:07

Whitewave I am not arguing against what happened in court or the judges decision. I am questioning why the OP felt it necessary to start a thread on GN about this case and word it in the way she did.

It is not a hidden case. It is on all the media and in the newspapers, she did not pick one element of it that concerned her because it told too much/too little. She just produced a summary of what was well inthe public eye. It read as if she picked itup because he was a Conservative MP.

I am no conservative supporter. I would have posted the same reaction had he beenin the Labour party.