New Family Court ruling means anonymity can not be used by perpetrators to further their abuse or avoid scrutiny

[IwantToRetire]

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.

Rest of article can be read at https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2024-07-16/tbij-wins-court-battle-to-publish-name-of-sex-offender/

Flippin awful and fantastic in equal measures.

Served four years of a nine year sentence!! He didn't plead guilty, so no credit for a guilty plea. His victim had to endure a trial. It was a stranger rape with threats to kill. Caught after 2 years through DNA which means further offending. Only a nine year sentence. Out after just four! Bloody hell!

Great news, but he should still be behind bars.

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

Lets hope they make the suspension permanent, he should never be allowed near them again.

The jurisdiction would be helpful. I've had to read the whole article. It feels to me that this is England. The only reason I am commenting this is that increasing links are from the US. Very different legal system to the UK. And of course as we know there are differences in the legal systems even within the UK.

But even so - seems a good decision.

@socialdilemmawhattodo

It looks like the court is in Reading

caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2024/182

It feels to me that this is England.

Yes it is, of course.

This has been an ongoing issue but I couldn't find earlier threads.

Sorry just assumed most would realise this.

I think most posting links from the US usually put some reference to it as it more a point of interest rather than a court decision that could impact cases here in the UK. Although maybe just England and Wales as Scotland has one system and NI has exemptions or something.

I've had to read the whole article.

Generally a good idea as whoever the OP is will just use extracts that they find interesting / support their view point!

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.

!!! 😢

I'd forgotten that part of the problem has been that usually Family Courts do not allow journalists to attend. But this has recently changed https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/29/abusers-family-courts-victims-journalists

But women have been trying to get people to understand how easy it is for perpetrators to manipulate the system https://domesticabusecommissioner.uk/stories/a-survivor-urges-the-family-court-to-consider-how-they-address-coercive-control-within-the-family-justice-system/

There’s a link to the judgment in the article

I sometimes read this site. Because it's investigative, it's not quick. They've had other good stuff on there as well about local government (eye watering debts racked up by some councils, god knows how).

This however, falls short of their standards:

www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2024-07-02/the-parents-group-at-the-centre-of-a-rollback-of-trans-rights/

Sorry I won't derail further, just a bit shocked as usually what I've read on there has been thorough.

This however, falls short of their standards:

On the same day they published another article by the same two writers called ‘One day they may thank us for that “abuse”’: Inside the Bayswater Support Group

It's very easy to see from twix that both writers are part of trans lobbying network.

eg Sasha has tweeted:

The news about Wes Streeting is disappointing but not surprising. Especially after we found out from an anonymous source that during the general election. Labour had been targeting any seats with trans people as candidates. (Really??)

And Valeria just retweets Sasha.

So investigative reporting has been dumbed down to joining a group whose politics you dont agree with, and then reporting the starting fact that they say things you dont agree with.

just a bit shocked as usually what I've read on there has been thorough.

I really think if you can be bothered to contact them, and say that the article falls short of being investigative as both authors have a biased agenda.

Its like saying joining FWR and then reporting all the gender critical things that are posted as somehow surprising.

Its like saying joining FWR and then reporting all the gender critical things that are posted as somehow surprising

Not really, as their job is to investigate and report what they find (without personal politics) which is exactly what they've not done in that article. It's just odd because I've not seen such blinkers before on that site.

Which is what I said, although would have been clearer if I said a TRA joined FWR and then reported gender critical comments as being surprising.

As you said that isn't investigating. That is using the prism of your biases to find quotes that confirm what you think.

Although others who aren't biased may not.

For all they know in their monofocused investigation has led to some readers thinking that Bayswater group sounds really interesting. Must make a note of how to contact them.