Judges involved in Sara Sharif care cases should be named, Court of Appeal told
Share:
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”.
