A ban on naming judges who oversaw proceedings related to the care of Sara Sharif before she was murdered “cannot be allowed to stand”, the Court of Appeal has been told.
Mr Justice Williams ruled in December that the media could not name three judges who oversaw historical Family Court cases related to 10-year-old Sara, as well as other “third parties” including social workers and guardians, due to a “real risk” of harm to them from a “virtual lynch mob”.
The media were 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.
Mr Justice Williams said that while withholding the names of judges was “an exceptional course to take”, seeking to argue that individuals involved in proceedings were responsible for Sara’s death was “equivalent to holding the lookout on the Titanic responsible for its sinking”.
Several media organisations, including the PA news agency, journalists Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers and the BBC, are appealing against the decision, telling a hearing on Tuesday that the judges should be named in media reporting in the interests of transparency.
Chris Barnes, for Ms Tickle and Ms Summers, said in written submissions that the judge’s decision was made on a “wholly generalised and insufficient basis” and was “unfair, poorly reasoned and unsustainable”, adding it was “out of step with the recognised need to promote transparency, and media reporting, in the Family Court”.
He said: “Judges very frequently sit on controversial cases and that, notwithstanding this reality, anonymity for a judge is not something which has any domestic precedent, indeed, it runs contrary to all established norms.”
He continued: “To seek anonymity for judges, save where truly exceptionally justified, is likely to have a corrosive impact on public confidence in the judiciary and the wider justice system.”
Sara died after a campaign of abuse (Surrey Police/PA)
He added: “The maintenance of such an order, with a wholly generalised and insufficient basis, represents a return to the comfort blanket of anonymity in which true accountability is lost.
“The judge’s order preventing the naming of those judges is unjustified, and undermines necessary efforts to increase transparency in the family justice system. It cannot be allowed to stand.”
Mr Barnes also said in court that the judge’s analogy concerning the Titanic was “problematic”, with Adam Wolanski KC, representing the BBC and other news organisations, claiming the comparison was “bizarre and wrong”.
The children’s guardian, who represents the youngsters involved in the case, and Sharif are opposing the appeal, which is being heard by three senior judges in London.
Cyrus Larizadeh KC, for Sharif, said in his written submissions that he was “concerned that no harm should come to the judge(s) who presided in the historic proceedings”.
Mr Larizadeh added that media reporting had led to “significant threats” being made on social media towards judges, including calls for them to be “‘strung up’, ‘shot at dawn’ and to be hanged ‘from a lamppost’”.
Alex Verdan KC, for the children’s guardian, said in written submissions that the judge’s decision “would seem to be grounded on concern for the wellbeing of judges” and “cannot properly be said to be unjust or a serious procedural irregularity”.
He said: “For many professionals working within the family justice system, particularly those in a judicial role, the risks are all too real, but all too infrequently acknowledged.”
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”.
Urfan Sharif and Beinash Batool were convicted of Sara’s murder (Surrey Police/PA)
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.
Surrey County Council told the court the appeal should be allowed, with Deirdre Fottrell KC saying in written submissions that the judge’s decision represented a “procedural irregularity”.
The hearing before Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby is expected to conclude on Wednesday, with Sir Geoffrey previously saying the appeal “raises questions that are of considerable public importance”.
A judgment is expected in writing at a later date.