A ban on naming judges who oversaw proceedings relating to Sarah Sharif’s care before her murder “cannot be allowed to stand”, the Court of Appeal has been told.
Judge Williams ruled in December that the media could not name three judges who oversaw the landmark family court cases involving 10-year-old Sarah, as well as other “third parties” including social workers and guardians, because of “real risk.” From the harm caused to them by a “virtual lynch mob.”
The media were allowed to report that Surrey County Council had concerns about Sarah’s father, Irfan Sharif, as early as 2010, and that Sarah was involved in three sets of family court proceedings before Sharif killed her and her stepmother, Binaash Batul, in their home. House in Woking, Surrey.
Justice Williams said that although withholding the names of the judges was “an extraordinary course to follow”, seeking to argue that individuals involved in the proceedings were responsible for Sarah’s death was “equivalent to holding the Titanic liable for her sinking”.
Several media organisations, including the PA news agency, journalists Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers and the BBC, appealed the decision, telling a hearing on Tuesday that judges should be named in media reports in the interests of transparency.
Chris Barnes, of Tickle and Summers, said in written submissions that the judge’s decision was made on a “wholly generalized and inadequate basis” and was “unfair, unwarranted and unsustainable”, adding that it was “not consistent with the recognized need to enhance transparency”. And media coverage in family court.”
“More often than not, judges hear controversial cases, and despite this reality, the anonymity of a judge is not something that has any local precedent, rather it goes against all established norms,” he said.
He continued: “Seeking anonymity for judges, except in exceptionally justified cases, is likely to have a devastating impact on public confidence in the judiciary and the wider justice system.”
He added: “Maintaining such an order, on a completely generalized and inadequate basis, represents a return to the comfortable veil of anonymity in which real accountability is lost.”
“The judge’s order blocking the naming 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 said in court that the judge’s comparison to the Titanic was “problematic”, with Adam Wolanski KC, representing the BBC and other news organisations, claiming the comparison was “bizarre and wrong”.
The children’s guardian, who represents the children involved in the case, and the sheriff oppose the appeal, which is being heard by three senior judges in London.
Cyrus Larizadeh, Sharif’s representative, said in his written submissions that he was “concerned that the judge(s) who presided over the historic proceedings would not suffer any harm.”
Larizadeh added that media reports led to “massive threats” on social media towards judges, including calls to “suspend” them, “shoot them at dawn,” and hang them “from a lamppost.”
Alex Verdun KC, representing the children’s guardian, said in written submissions that the judge’s decision “appears to be based on concern for the safety of judges” and “cannot be said to be unfair or a serious procedural irregularity”.
“For many professionals working in the family justice system, especially those in judicial positions, the risks are all very real, but rarely acknowledged,” he said.
Documents released to the media showed Surrey County Council first came into contact with Sharif and Sarah’s mother, Olga Sharif, in 2010 – more than two years before Sarah was born – after it received “referrals indicating neglect” in relation to her older brothers. Older, known. Just like Z and U.
The Authority commenced care proceedings relating to Z and U in January 2013, relating to Sarah within a week of her birth.
Between 2013 and 2015, numerous allegations of abuse were made that were never tested in court, with one hearing in 2014 saying the board had “significant concerns” about the children returning to the sheriff, “given the history of allegations of physical abuse against the children.” “. Children and domestic violence with Mr Sharif as the perpetrator.”
In 2019, a judge agreed for Sarah to move in with her father at the home in Woking where she later died after a campaign of abuse.
Sharif and Batoul were sentenced to life imprisonment for Sarah’s murder last December, with a minimum of 40 years and a maximum of 33 years.
Her uncle, Faisal Malik, was sentenced to 16 years in prison after being found guilty of causing or allowing her death.
Surrey County Council told the court the appeal should be allowed, with Deirdre Fottrell KC saying in written submissions that the judge’s decision represented a “procedural irregularity”.
The hearing before Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby is expected to conclude on Wednesday, with Sir Geoffrey previously saying the appeal “raises questions of great public importance”.
The ruling is expected to be issued in writing at a later date.
Email pg**@pr**********.uk To point out errors, provide story tips, or submit a letter for publication on our blog “Letters Page.”
