The judges who oversaw court proceedings about Sara Sharif’s care before she was murdered have “serious concerns” about the risks to them and their families if they are now named, the Court of Appeal has been told.
Mr Justice Williams ruled in December that the media could not identify three judges who oversaw historical family court cases related to Sara, as well as others including social workers and guardians, due to a “real risk” of harm from a “virtual lynch mob”.
The judge added that arguing the individuals involved in those proceedings were responsible for Sara’s death aged just 10 was “equivalent to holding the lookout on the Titanic responsible for its sinking”.
Now several media organisations are challenging the ban on naming the judges, arguing that they should be identified in the interests of transparency.
Titanic analogy ‘bizarre and wrong’, court told
In written submissions, 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 that may have a wider impact on the whole judiciary, and the three judges could not represent the interests of all judges.
“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,” Mr Purchase said.
“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, barristers for the news organisations said the judge’s analogy concerning the Titanic was “problematic” and that the comparison was “bizarre and wrong”.
Follow our channel and never miss an update
Killer dad opposes naming judges
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”.
Previously released documents 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, and involved 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.
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
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 at least 16 years after being convicted of causing or allowing her death.
The Court of Appeal hearing will conclude today with a decision in writing expected at a later date.
