The three judges involved in proceedings concerning Sara Sharif in the years before her death can be named following a Court of Appeal ruling.
Judge Alison Raeside, Judge Peter Nathan and Judge Sally Williams were all involved in family court proceedings related to the 10-year-old between 2013 and 2019.
The last of three sets of proceedings saw Sara placed in the home of her father, Urfan Sharif, and her stepmother, Beinash Batool, who murdered her at the same address in Woking, Surrey, in 2023 and were jailed for life last year.
The press was previously barred from reporting the names of the judges and other professionals involved in the case, with the High Court ruling they “acted within the parameters that law and social work practice set for them”.
But the Court of Appeal ruled on January 24 that the media could name the judges at 10am on Friday in the interests of open justice, having heard that all three judges wanted “to convey their profound shock, horror and sadness about what happened to Sara Sharif”.
Documents previously disclosed to the media showed that Surrey County Council was involved with the Sharif family for several years before Sara’s death, including beginning care proceedings for her just a week after her birth.
They also showed that the authority first had contact with Urfan Sharif and Sara’s mother Olga Sharif in 2010 – more than two years before Sara was born – and had received “referrals indicative of neglect” relating to Sara’s two older siblings, known only as Z and U.
Judge Raeside, who remains an active judge, dealt with the majority of the proceedings related to Sara, with Judges Nathan and Williams – who have both since retired – involved to a lesser degree.
The first set of proceedings was told that the council had “a number of concerns in relation to the care that (Olga Sharif) and Mr Sharif provide Z and U and are likely to provide to Sara”.
Judge Raeside approved the children being placed under supervision orders, meaning the children stayed in their parents’ care – a position supported by Surrey County Council, the children’s guardian and Sara’s parents.
Urfan Sharif (Surrey Police/PA)
In November 2014, after Z was found with an arm injury consistent with an adult bite mark, Sara and her two siblings were taken into police protection.
Olga Sharif later accepted a caution after being charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Judge Raeside then extended the same order for a week the following day, with Judge Williams making an interim care order for Sara and one of her siblings as proceedings continued in 2015 – her only involvement in the case.
At the end of the same set of proceedings, a hearing before Judge Raeside was told that the authority was “extremely concerned” that Sara and U were “likely to suffer significant emotional and physical harm in their parents’ care”, as both alleged the other was violent.
Despite the allegations, the council still concluded that “the risk can be managed” if Sara was returned to her mother’s care with supervised contact with her father, with this position also supported by the children’s guardian. Judge Raeside approved the plan in May 2015.
Then in 2019, Sara was moved to the property where she was later murdered, following her accusations of physical abuse by her mother, which were never proved.
In a report for a final hearing in October 2019, a social worker told the court that they assessed that “Urfan and Beinash are able to meet Sara and (U’s) needs for safety, stability, emotional warmth and guidance”, adding that Urfan Sharif “appears to have the children’s welfare at heart”.
A judge previously allowed the media access to documents from family court proceedings related to Sara (Surrey Police/PA)
The move was also supported by the children’s guardian and Sara’s parents and was approved by Judge Raeside.
Sara was murdered in August 2023 after a campaign of abuse, with Urfan Sharif and Batool jailed for life with minimum terms of 40 years and 33 years respectively for her murder last December.
Her uncle, Faisal Malik, was jailed for 16 years for causing or allowing her death.
In the same month, Mr Justice Williams ruled that the media could access documents from the historic proceedings but ruled that social workers, guardians and judges could not be named.
He said that the decisions of professionals involved were “not obviously flawed” and the decision of Judge Raeside to send Sara to her father’s home was “indicated by faithful application of law and practice mandated”.
He said: “In this case, the evidence suggests that social workers, guardians, lawyers and judiciary acted within the parameters that law and social work practice set for them.
“Certainly to my reasonably well-trained eye there is nothing, save the benefit of hindsight, which indicates that the decisions reached in 2013, 2015 or 2019 were unusual or unexpected.
“Based on what was known at the time and applying the law at the time I don’t see the judge or anyone else having any real alternative option.
Several media organisations, including the PA news agency, appealed against the restriction on naming judges.
Appeal judges ruled earlier this month that the judges should be named, finding that Mr Justice Williams was wrong to anonymise them.
But Sir Geoffrey Vos, sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby, added that while judges “are required to show resilience and fortitude”, they were “not required to tolerate bullying or abusive behaviour”.
He said: “It should be noted that the historic judges had, as in all cases of this type, the difficult task of assessing the risk of future harm which could only be done against the background of the evidence before them.”