Kristoffer White: TBIJ wins court battle to publish name of sex offender

Content warning: this story contains descriptions of sexual abuse

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) has won a legal battle to publish the name of a serial rapist following a ruling by a family court judge.

The findings that former soldier Kristoffer Paul Arthur White raped his ex-partner three times during their relationship came after he made an application to the court to spend more time with his child.

The ruling has been hailed as an “important decision” that shows it is possible to preserve the anonymity of people involved in highly sensitive cases while ensuring the family court process is not used by perpetrators to further their abuse or avoid scrutiny.

There are strict rules about protecting the names of parents involved in family proceedings in order to preserve the privacy of their children.

But because it had previously been reported in the press that White had been convicted and jailed in 2011 for raping a teenager, who he had pulled off the street and threatened to kill, it was argued that there were strong public interest reasons for identifying him in relation to the family proceedings.

White, who had been employed in the armed forces at the time of the attack, served four years of a nine-year prison sentence for two counts of rape.

TBIJ first applied to lift the reporting restrictions at a hearing before Judge Greenfield on 24 April. Greenfield allowed an appeal brought by the mother to overturn a decision by a different judge who had permitted White to have unsupervised contact with his young child.

At a further hearing, TBIJ went on to make a joint application with a freelance journalist, Suzanne Martin, to name the sex offender.

It was put to the court that the rape of the teenager showed White’s behaviour was not limited to a domestic setting and the public interest demanded that he is identified. In addition, there was a possibility White had been using different names, adding weight to the argument.

The decision was referred to Judge Moradifar, who ruled the father could be named.

White opposed the press application, as did a court-appointed guardian representing his child. The child’s mother, however, supported it.

In a ruling published this week, Moradifar wrote: “In my judgment, the facts of this case demonstrate a compelling public interest argument that prevents the abuser shielding behind his/her rights or those of a child which prevent him/her from being publicly identified.

“This consideration gains greater importance where there is an established course of conduct that may expose individuals outside the confines of the case to a risk of harm and to limit if not extinguish their ability to protect themselves or their loved ones.”

He said the existing rules around anonymity should continue to apply to the mother and child, who is of primary school age.

Significant ruling

Olive Craig, senior legal officer at the organisation Rights of Women, described the ruling as an “important decision”.

“This judgment is an example of how, in the right circumstances, it is possible for the family court to protect the identities of children and survivors of rape while ensuring the court is not used by perpetrators to further their abuse or avoid public scrutiny, especially when they have previously been convicted of rape against a different woman.”

According to media reports at the time of his sentencing in 2011, White attacked a 19-year-old student in 2008 as she made her way home after working in a bar. It was reported that he dragged her into a garden, threatened to kill her and raped her twice.

It was not until two years later that he was linked to the attack through his DNA. He denied the offence but was convicted and placed indefinitely on the sex offender register.

Craig said it was significant that the mother had supported the application to name White, adding: “Survivors of rape should feel able to make allegations to the family court without fear of being identified against their wishes, just like in the criminal courts.”

It is “highly unusual” for parties in private family law cases to be named publicly, explained Lucy Reed KC, chair of the Transparency Project, a family justice charity.

She added that the approval of such applications usually requires a component to the case that elevates the level of public interest so that it outweighs other factors.

“The welfare of the child remains an important factor in decisions around publicity, even though it is not the “paramount” or “only consideration.”

In 2022, for instance, it was made public that the former Conservative MP Andrew Griffiths had raped his ex-wife, following a year-long fight in the family courts from journalists Brian Farmer and Louise Tickle.

The barrister Charlotte Proudman, who represented the mother, told TBIJ: “As far as we are aware this is the first family court judgment naming a rapist who is not a public figure following private family law proceedings.”

In opposing the press application to publish his name, White said the public interest was stronger in the Griffiths case as the parents each held a public office and that there was no other information in the public domain to serve in the public interest.

He said transparency could be achieved through an anonymous judgment and that he was concerned about the stress it would cause to those close to him, including his current partner, were he to be named by the press.

Following the press application, a new guardian from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) was appointed to represent the interests of the child.

They said they recognised that White poses an “increased risk” to women and children but the fact there is already information in the public domain made further publication unnecessary and disproportionate. They also raised concerns that, in the future, the child could be bullied by their peers.

Supporting the press application, the mother told the court she had lost trust in Cafcass. She criticised the organisation for empowering the father to hide behind her child’s rights to privacy and for not giving proper regard to the father’s behaviour and consequences for his victims.

The mother highlighted that she had successfully appealed the judge’s decision on the issue of contact between White and their child as their decision was in the main “informed by a woefully inadequate assessment” by a Cafcass family court adviser previously involved in the case.

The decision to allow unsupervised contact followed a fact finding hearing in December 2022 which determined that White had been coercive and controlling and had raped the mother three times.

The child’s contact with White has been suspended pending a final decision by the court.

If you have been affected by issues similar to those raised in this article and want to share your experiences, please contact [email protected]