The Court of Appeal said judges involved in Sarah Sharif’s custody cases should be replaced

The Court of Appeal said the ban on the appointment of judges who oversaw proceedings relating to the care of Sarah Sharif before her murder “cannot be upheld.”

Judge Williams ruled in December that the media could not report the names of three judges who oversaw historic Family Court cases involving 10-year-old Sarah, as well as other “third parties” including social workers and carers, because of a “real risk” of harm inflicted on them by a “virtual lynch mob”.

The media may have reported that Surrey County Council had concerns about Sara’s father, Urfan Sharif, as early as 2010 and that Sara had attended three family court proceedings before she was murdered by Sharif and her stepmother, Beinash Batool, in their home. at home in Woking, Surrey.

Judge Williams said that while withholding the judges’ names was an “exceptional move”, trying to show that those involved in the proceedings were responsible for Sarah’s death was “equivalent to maintaining a sighting of the Titanic responsible for its sinking”.

Several media organizations, including the AP news agency, journalists Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers and the BBC, are appealing the decision, arguing at Tuesday’s hearing that in the interests of transparency, the judges’ names should be mentioned in media reports.

Chris Barnes, on behalf of Ms Tickle and Ms Summers, said in written submissions that the judge’s decision was made on a “wholly generalized and insufficient basis” and that it was “unfair, ill-reasoned and unsustainable”, adding that it was “inconsistent with recognized transparency should be promoted and media coverage in the Family Court.”

He stated: “Judges very often sit on controversial cases and regardless of this reality, judicial anonymity is not something that has precedent in the country, and in fact goes against all established norms.”

He continued: “The pursuit of anonymity for judges, unless it is truly exceptionally justified, could have a devastating impact on public confidence in the judiciary and the wider justice system.”

He added: “To maintain such an order, based on a completely generalized and insufficient basis, is to return to a comfortable blanket of anonymity in which real responsibility is lost.

“The judge’s order preventing the appointment of these judges is unjustified and undermines necessary efforts to increase transparency in the family justice system. It cannot be allowed to stand.”

Barnes also told the court that the judge’s Titanic analogy was “problematic”, and Adam Wolański KC, representing the BBC and other news organizations, said the comparison was “bizarre and wrong”.

The children’s guardian, who represents the youth involved in the case, and Sharif are opposing the appeal, which is being heard by three senior judges in London.

Cyrus Larizadeh KC, on behalf of Sharif, said in his written remarks that he was “concerned that no harm will come to the judge(s) who presided over the historic proceedings.”

Larizadeh added that the media reports had led to “serious threats” on social media against the judges, including calls to “hang them”, “shoot them at dawn” and hang them “from a lamppost”.

Alex Verdan KC, the child’s guardian, said in written comments that the judge’s decision “appears to be based on a concern for the well-being of the judges” and “cannot rightly be considered unfair or a serious procedural irregularity.”

He said: “For many professionals working in the family justice system, particularly those in judicial roles, the risks are all too real, yet too little acknowledged.”

Documents released to the media show Surrey County Council first contacted Sharif and Sarah’s mother, Olga Sharif, in 2010 – more than two years before Sarah was born – after receiving “reports of neglect” in relation to the two of them older siblings known only as Z and U.

The authority initiated care proceedings regarding Z and U in January 2013, covering Sara within a week of her birth.

Several allegations of violence were made between 2013 and 2015 but were never investigated in court, and one hearing in 2014 said the council had “serious concerns” about returning the children to Sharif, “given the history of allegations involving “physical child abuse” of children and domestic violence perpetrated by Mr. Sharif.”

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

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

Her uncle, Faisal Malik, was sentenced to 16 years in prison after being convicted of causing or enabling her death.

Surrey County Council told the court the appeal should be allowed, and Deirdre Fottrell KC said in written submissions that the judge’s decision amounted to a “procedural irregularity”.

The hearing before Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby is expected to end on Wednesday, with Sir Geoffrey previously saying the appeal “raises questions of great public importance”.

The judgment is expected to be delivered in writing at a later date.