Judges involved in Sara Sharif care cases can be named, Court of Appeal rules

Three judges who oversaw family court proceedings related to the care of Sara Sharif can be named next week, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

In December, Mr Justice Williams said that the media could not identify three judges who oversaw historical court cases related to 10-year-old Sara, as well as others including social workers and guardians, because of a “real risk” of harm to them from a “virtual lynch mob”.

Several media organisations, including the PA news agency and journalists Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers, challenged the ban on naming the judges.

And in a ruling on Friday, three Court of Appeal judges said the three unnamed judges could be identified in seven days, allowing time for HMCTS to put protective measures in place.

Sir Geoffrey Vos said: “In the circumstances of this case, the judge had no jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges either on 9 December 2024 or thereafter. He was wrong to do so.”

At a hearing in January, the Court of Appeal in London heard that two of the judges are retired, with the third still sitting as a judge, and that all three wanted “to convey their profound shock, horror and sadness about what happened to Sara Sharif”.

Mathew Purchase KC, on their behalf, later said in written submissions that each of them had “serious concerns” about the risks of now being identified particularly given the “often inflammatory nature of public and media commentary”.

In Friday’s judgment, Sir Geoffrey said he had taken what the three judges had said “very seriously”, adding “none of that material, which substantially relates to the potential impact on the judges of the publicity generated following the making of the order, was before the judge” (Mr Justice Williams).

Sir Geoffrey, sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby, continued: “It is the role of the judge to sit in public and, even if sitting in private, to be identified… Judges will sit on many types of case in which feelings run high, and where there may be risks to their personal safety.

“I have in mind cases involving national security, criminal gangs and terrorism. It is up to the authorities with responsibility for the courts to put appropriate measures in place to meet these risks, depending on the situation presented by any particular case.

“The first port of call is not, and cannot properly be, the anonymisation of the judge’s name.”

Sir Geoffrey ruled that the case will return for further hearings but will be heard by a different High Court judge.

The media were previously allowed to report that Surrey County Council had concerns about Sara’s father, Urfan Sharif, as early as 2010 and that Sara was involved in three sets of family court proceedings before she was murdered by Sharif and her stepmother, Beinash Batool, at their home in Woking, Surrey.

Documents released to the media showed that Surrey County Council first had contact with Sharif and Sara’s mother, Olga Sharif, in 2010 – more than two years before Sara was born – having received “referrals indicative of neglect” relating to her two older siblings, known only as Z and U.

The authority began care proceedings concerning Z and U in January 2013, involving Sara within a week of her birth.

Between 2013 and 2015, several allegations of abuse were made that were never tested in court, with one hearing in 2014 told that the council had “significant concerns” about the children returning to Sharif, “given the history of allegations of physical abuse of the children and domestic abuse with Mr Sharif as the perpetrator”.

In 2019, a judge approved Sara moving to live with her father at the home in Woking where she later died after a campaign of abuse.

Sharif and Batool were jailed for life for Sara’s murder in December, with minimum terms of 40 years and 33 years.

Her uncle, Faisal Malik, was jailed for 16 years after being convicted of causing or allowing her death.