Judges who oversaw proceedings related to the care of Sara Sharif before she was murdered have “serious concerns” about the risks of now being named, the Court of Appeal has been told. In December, Mr Justice Williams ruled that the media could not identify three judges who oversaw historical family court cases related to 10-year-old Sara, as well as others including social workers and guardians, due to a “real risk” of harm to them from a “virtual lynch mob”.
Mr Justice Williams also said that 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 and journalists Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers, are challenging the ban on naming the judges, telling the court in London that they should be named in media reporting in the interests of transparency.
In written submissions made available on Wednesday, the three unnamed judges told the Court of Appeal that they wanted “to convey their profound shock, horror and sadness about what happened to Sara Sharif”. Mathew Purchase KC, on their behalf, continued in the written submissions that the judges felt unable to make arguments “on the difficult questions raised by this appeal”, including due to constitutional and ethical concerns about individual judges being involved in debates about their roles.
He added that the appeal involved issues which could have a wider impact on the whole judiciary, and the three judges could not represent the interests of all judges. Mr Purchase later said: “Each of them has serious concerns about the risks which would arise if they were now identified, particularly in the prevailing circumstances, including the content and often inflammatory nature of public and media commentary arising from the intense scrutiny which has followed from Mr Justice Williams’ judgment.
(Left to right) Sara Sharif’s stepmother Beinash Batool, uncle Faisal Malik and father Urfan Sharif appearing for sentencing
(Image: Elizabeth Cook/PA)
“It is important to underline that those concerns relate not only to their own personal wellbeing but also to their family members and others close to them, whose interests the court may consider should also be taken into account.” The barrister later said that the judges “consider that a proper and thorough assessment of the risks should be undertaken before any decision is made” and that if they are going to be named, further assessments should be done.
During the first day of the appeal on Tuesday, Chris Barnes, for Ms Tickle and Ms Summers, said the judge’s analogy concerning the Titanic was “problematic”, while Adam Wolanski KC, representing the BBC and other news organisations, said the comparison was “bizarre and wrong”. Mr Barnes 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”.
Sara’s father Urfan Sharif opposes the appeal. Cyrus Larizadeh KC, for Sharif, said in written submissions that he was “concerned that no harm should come to the judge(s) who presided in the historic proceedings”.
Documents previously 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 stepmother Beinash 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. The Court of Appeal hearing before Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby will conclude on Wednesday with a decision in writing expected at a later date.
Sign up to our London Court & Crime newsletter for the latest major court updates and breaking news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up HERE