A judge has ruled that a serial rapist whom the family court had permitted to have unsupervised contact with his child can be named following a successful application by journalists. There were findings made that Kristoffer Paul Arthur White raped his ex-partner three times during their relationship after he made an application to the court in 2021 to spend more time with his child. There are strict rules about protecting the names of parents involved in family proceedings in order to preserve the privacy of their children. But the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) and the freelance journalist Suzanne Martin made a joint application to name the father and link him to the family proceedings, citing compelling public interest arguments. They included the fact it had previously been reported in the media that White had been convicted and jailed in 2011 for raping a teenager. The sex offender, who was 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. Reporters applied to name the former soldier after a hearing in April where Judge Greenfield upheld an appeal brought by the mother to overturn a decision by a district judge that White could spend unsupervised time with his child. The decision on reporting 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. 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 avoid public scrutiny.” 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. It is highly unusual for parties in private family law cases to be named publicly. However, in 2022 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 by the journalists Brian Farmer and Louise Tickle. Commenting on Moradifar’s judgment, the barrister Charlotte Proudman, who represented White’s ex-partner, said: “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. A guardian from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) said they recognised that White posed an “increased risk” to women and children but the fact there was already information in the public domain made further publication unnecessary and disproportionate. 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 child’s contact with White has been suspended pending a final decision by the court.