In 2020, the Offender Database recorded that then 51-year-old Christian Diamant—owner of the White Horse Inn in Bridge, Kent—avoided unpaid work following a conviction for possessing indecent images of children. The investigation established that in January 2020, police arrested Diamant at his premises near Canterbury and recovered his iPhone. The prosecution reported at Canterbury Crown Court that digital forensics uncovered 28 indecent images and three videos of child abuse.
The investigation established that Diamant, a former footman and under-butler to the Queen, had utilised his mobile device to facilitate digital strikes involving child sexual abuse. The prosecution reported that Diamant admitted to an addiction to using the app Grindr to communicate with men and occasionally engaged in video calls and chats specifically to discuss and watch the sexual violation of children. Despite the predatory nature of his digital consumption, the court focused on the potential impact of a sentence on his hospitality business.
JUDICIAL FINDINGS AND SENTENCING
The court reported that Diamant had a high-profile background, having previously served the Royal Family at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle during state visits and royal weddings. The investigation established that Diamant pleaded guilty to the possession charges at an earlier hearing. The prosecution reported that Recorder Trimmer explicitly stated he had “no desire to upset his business” by ordering unpaid work, as it might interfere with the operation of the White Horse Inn.
Judge-led proceedings at Canterbury Crown Court concluded in 2020 with Diamant being handed a two-year community rehabilitation order. For his actions in Bridge and Canterbury and the nature of the serial child abuse reported, he was ordered to attend a mandatory sex offenders programme. The judge noted that while the business interests were considered, the statutory requirements for rehabilitation and public protection remained the primary focus of the order.
STATUS AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
Based on the judicial orders issued in 2020:
- Legal Status: CONVICTED (Possession of indecent images of children; Possession of indecent videos of children).
- Custodial Status: NON-CUSTODIAL (In 2020, 2-year community rehabilitation order).
- Sex Offenders Register: Notification requirements are active for 5 YEARS (Set to conclude in 2025).
- SHPO Status: Active (Imposing strict conditions on his digital device usage and internet access).
- DBS Status: Placed on the Barred List (Indefinite and permanent ban from any role involving children or regulated activity).
- Judicial Oversight: Sentenced at Canterbury Crown Court; investigated by Kent Police.
- Criminal Record: Former royal footman who possessed Category A-C images of child abuse; Admitted to using Grindr to facilitate child abuse discussions; Spared unpaid work to protect his pub business; Convicted in 2020.
- Origin: Faversham and Bridge, Kent.
MONITORING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION
Diamant is managed as a high-risk offender under the statutory requirements of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) in Kent. Due to the nature of his behaviour—specifically his “calculated” use of social networking apps to seek out child abuse content—he is a priority for digital forensic monitoring by the police. Authorities reported that the 2020 conviction ensures Diamant is permanently flagged on national databases, preventing him from ever holding a position of trust involving children.
As a registered sex offender until 2025, his details are permanently logged on the national police database. Authorities state that Diamant’s behaviour identifies an individual who prioritised his own gratification over the safety and human rights of the children depicted in the abuse material he watched. Any failure by Diamant to adhere to his rehabilitation requirements or his notification requirements in Bridge, Canterbury, or elsewhere will result in immediate police intervention to ensure the ongoing safety of the public from a man who has violated the principles of human decency.
QUESTION – Given that the judge “Spared” the offender unpaid work to protect his business interests, do you believe the law should legally prohibit judges from considering an offender’s “Economic Contribution” or business ownership when determining a sentence for child sex crimes?
If you or anyone you know has been affected by the individuals highlighted on this website, please report them to the Police on 101 (999 in an emergency) or visit their online resources for further details on reporting a crime. You can also report to Crimestoppers if you wish to remain completely anonymous. There is help available on our support links page.