Griffiths v Griffiths (Guidance on Contact Costs) [2022] EWHC 113 (Fam)
In 2020, the family court found that Kate Griffiths MP’s husband, a former disgraced MP, raped her in her sleep, physically and verbally abused her and coercively controlled her. The court also found that the child was verbally abused by the father. After a Court of Appeal hearing in 2021 the fact-finding decision was made public.
Despite findings about serious abuse, the family court still ordered interim direct contact with the perpetrator and that Kate Griffiths MP, a rape victim, should contribute towards the costs of her rapist’s contact costs. Dr Proudman appealed the decision arguing that such an approach breaches the mother’s Article 8 and 14 ECHR. Dr Proudman submitted that a financial order against a rape victim for the benefit of a rapist is abusive and re-traumatising and the courts should never continue the financial control of perpetrators. The court upheld the appeal. The court set aside an order for direct contact and payment of the abuser’s contact costs by the victim. Following submissions by Dr Proudman, the appellate court held that there must be a strong presumption against a victim ever paying a perpetrator’s costs of contact.
You can read about it here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2022/113.html
Related barristers: Dr Charlotte Proudman
