Judge has found that a former Conservative minister, who sent 2,000 text messages to his friend and barmaid about ‘violent sexual acts’ had quit.

Judge Elizabeth Williscroft found that Andrew Griffiths (51), had pressured Kate Griffiths (Conservative MP for Burton in Staffordshire) into sexual activity and used “coercive, controlling behavior”.

A family dispute between Mr Griffiths’ ex-wife Kate Griffiths is being handled by the judge. It centers on a child. 

Ms Griffiths voiced concern at the lack of contact that Mr Griffiths had with their child and also raised a number of accusations about his treatment of her after they got married.

According to her, he had raped and pressed his throat on her neck while they were together. She did not file a police complaint.

After a Sunday paper reported Griffiths had sent depraved messages to two female constituents, his wife became the new MP for Burton.

A 28-year old barmaid and her friend were bombarded by him with sexual comments on social media over a period of three weeks.

A judge concluded that Andrew Griffiths, 51, pressurised Kate Griffiths, the current Conservative MP for Burton, Staffordshire, into engaging in sexual activity, and used 'coercive and controlling behaviour'

Judges ruled that Andrew Griffiths (51), had pressured Kate Griffiths, Conservative MP for Burton in Staffordshire into sexual activity and used “coercive, controlling behavior”.

Mr Griffiths was replaced by his wife as the Conservative MP for Burton after he bombarded a barmaid and her friend with explicit texts

After he sent explicit messages to a friend and a barmaid, Mr Griffiths was replaced as Conservative MP for Burton by his wife

Mr Griffiths sent the string of messages to barmaid Imogen Treharne, 28, (pictured) and her friend whom he paid £700 and offered to rent out a flat for 'something filthy'

Mr Griffiths sent the string of messages to barmaid Imogen Treharne, 28, (pictured) and her friend whom he paid £700 and offered to rent out a flat for ‘something filthy’

Griffiths was just weeks away from giving birth when she sent this string of messages. 

He also gave the pair £700 to and offered to rent out a flat so that they could hook up while demanding they send him something ‘f****** filthy’.

He called himself ‘evil’ and described his degrading sexual acts.

Even said that he would rather be “licking naughty girl” than “running the country”.

Williscroft, a judge, made conclusive statements in his case regarding Mrs Griffiths’s wife. He did so on the basis of the balance of probabilities. These findings, which were originally kept secret at first, have been made publicly. 

Judge was currently overseeing a conflict between Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths. It centred on the child at Derby’s private family court hearings.

Judge Xavier Griffiths told the court that Griffiths had been in a relationship for five years before they got married. 

It was reported that Griffiths, who became an MP in 2010, served as a minister between January 2018 and July 2018. 

Ms. Griffiths is now an MP. Judge Williscroft stated that she believed they were a glamorous couple. 

The judge ruled that Ms Griffiths discovered in 2010 that Mr Griffiths was having a “long affair”. 

His wife had attended the Conservative Party Conference 2010.

The man had admitted to threatening Ms. Griffiths that he would send’sexual texts’ to’someone else if she spoke with his wife. Ms Griffiths discovered in 2011 that Griffiths was sending sexual texts to “someone else”. 

Judge Williscroft said that Griffiths described how he’d engaged in what he called sexually dangerous behaviours for years and enjoyed them. 

According to him, he told the judge that his addiction was pornography. 

After Mr Griffiths had sent two ‘depraved and… sexual texts messages’ to his constituents in July 2018, the couple split. 

Judge Williscroft ruled that Mr Griffiths’ “own needs” took precedence during their marriage. 

When Griffiths sent the string of messages to barmaid Imogen Treharne, 28, and her friend, Ms Griffiths had just given birth to the couple's first child

Griffiths was 28 when she sent the messages to Imogen Treharne (barmaid), and to her friend. Ms Griffiths just had given birth to their first child.

Describing himself as 'evil', he detailed degrading sex acts and demanded explicit pictures and videos from the barmaid

 Describing himself as ‘evil’, he detailed degrading sex acts and demanded explicit pictures and videos from the barmaid

In order to get Ms Griffiths to give in to his sexual desires, he had made a slur against her. 

She said she felt that Andrew Griffiths never considered that Ms Griffiths might not follow his wishes. She claimed that Mr Griffiths had “undermined” Ms Griffiths’ self-esteem. 

He acknowledged that Ms Griffiths had been called ‘fat’ and ‘lazy’ by him. Judge Griffiths stated that Ms Griffiths had “proven in her oral evidence before me” that Mr Griffiths raped her during sexual intercourse. 

She stated that Ms Griffiths had ‘confirmed her allegations’ through Mr Griffiths’responses.

Judge Williscroft said that Andrew Griffiths denied all allegations and claimed that he has never been in sexual contact with anyone. “I couldn’t accept that there had been sexual ‘give-and-take’ between them.” 

Ms Griffiths claimed that rapes began while she was sleeping. 

Judge Williscroft stated: “I accept that Kate Griffiths presented oral evidence to support my conclusion. Andrew Griffiths’ replies confirm that Griffiths raped her during sexual intercourse while she was sleeping.

 Ms Griffiths, who gave evidence behind a screen at court hearings so she could not see Mr Griffiths, had also given accounts of ‘physical abuse’. 

Judge said that she believed those accounts were ‘proved. 

He allegedly tried to strangle her after a heated argument. Griffiths denied that any assault took place. 

Judge Williscroft stated that she preferred Ms Griffiths’ account. He had also pushed Griffiths while she was pregnant. 

She stated that there was an argument over Mr Griffiths’ “continued desire” for Ms Griffiths to move to London. 

Judge Williscroft stated that Mr Griffiths had “wanted to be in London to spend family time ‘like David Cameron’.” Judge Williscroft said there had been an incident in a hotel where Mr Griffiths had thrown a passport and money at Ms Griffiths, pushed her on to a bed and told her to ‘f*** off home’. 

In the case of his wife, judge Williscroft made findings, on the balance of probabilities, against Mr Griffiths, in November 2020 (couple pictured on their wedding day in 2013)

Williscroft, a judge in Williscroft’s case against his wife made findings on the balance to probabilities in Mr Griffiths’s favor in November 2020. The couple was photographed on their wedding day of 2013

Mr Griffiths (pictured with Boris Johnson) became an MP in 2010 and was a minister between January and July 2018

Boris Johnson is pictured here with Mr Griffiths, who was an MP from 2010 and a minister between January 2017 and July 2018.

Judge described the judge’s ‘frightening loss control’, and stated that his excessive response was ‘worrying. 

Mr Griffiths admitted that he was ‘abusive’ of Ms Griffiths verbally, and had ‘hurt’ her when drunk. 

Initially, the judge decided the findings should not be made public, in order to protect the child at the centre of the case.

After two journalists had learned of the case, and asserted that the public had the right to know the details, a higher-ranking judge at the High Court ruled Judge Williscroft should be made public and named Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths.

Judge Williscroft asked Mrs Justice Lieven to look into arguments regarding publicity. She is located in the Family Division at the High Court.

At a private hearing held in London, Mrs Justice Lieven heard journalists’ requests to allow them to report the findings of Judge Williscroft and named Mr. and Ms Griffiths. She ruled in their favor.

Mr Griffiths challenged the ruling of Mrs Justice Lieven and requested that Court of Appeal judges review his case.

His appeal was dismissed by three appeal judges Friday. Judge Williscroft’s findings and those of Mrs Justice Lieven may be public.

Ms Griffiths had supported the fight of journalists for publication, and she agreed to name victims in media reports. Griffiths opposed publication.

He said that the publication of Judge Williscroft’s conclusions and the names of Ms Griffiths and him would cause harm to the child involved in the case, as well his relationships with them.

Justice Lieven had ruled in Mr Griffiths’ favor. She said that the child in the center of the case couldn’t be identified by media reports.

“(Judge Williscroft), found that the father was physically abusive to his mother on multiple occasions,” Mrs Justice Lieven wrote in response to publicity arguments.

“The judge found the father used coercive, controlling behavior to pressure the mother into sexual activity.

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

Justice Lieven claimed that the media had to balance freedom to speak with respect for private and family life.

She claimed she’d done an extensive and fact-specific inquiry and determined that Judge Williscroft’s conclusions should be published.

Mrs Justice Lieven stated, “I accept that on the particular facts of this case there is substantial and legitimate public benefit in the publication judgment including identification of parties,”

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

Importantly, his position as an MP or minister gave him a role in the law-making process, especially in regard to domestic abuse.

“The simple fact that he was an MP and not a minister means there’s a strong public interest to know about the findings of a judge on the conduct described in the judgment.

“The democratic system depends on the media’s ability to publish information regarding elected representatives, especially when the information is derived from court judgement findings.”

Charlotte Proudman (a barrister representing Ms Griffiths) had informed Mrs Justice Lieven about a previous harassment complaint against Mr Griffiths. 

Today, Ms Griffiths reacted by saying: “I appreciate this decision as an important step forward in the legal battle that has taken such a heavy emotional and financial toll upon my family.

‘I supported publication by the Family Court’s conclusions – and waived the right to anonymity. I acknowledge the unique position in which I find myself to fight to improve the outcome of cases like this for domestic violence victims and to ensure the protection of their children.

‘When I was elected as Member of the Parliament for Burton & Uttoxeter in November, I made it clear that I would stand up for domestic abuse victims.

“I will work with all my Parliament colleagues to make sure that people who are going through the same experiences I have, get the best support possible.