An “exceptional” decision to grant anonymity to the judges who oversaw Sara Sharif’s care proceedings will “raise public suspicion” of the justice system, a court has heard.
Mr Justice Williams previously imposed an order “banning the entirety of the British press” from naming any family court judges involved in the 10-year-old’s care before she was murdered.
On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal heard that the “unwarranted” and “unprecedented” ruling “could not be allowed to stand”.
Several media organisations, including The Telegraph, the BBC and freelance journalists Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers are appealing against the decision.
Sara’s father, Urfan Sharif, 43 and her stepmother, Beinash Batool, 30 were sentenced in 2024 to life in prison for her murder after subjecting the schoolgirl to years of “inconceivable cruelty”.
Sara was found dead at the family home in Woking, Surrey on Aug 10 2023 after being beaten, burned, hooded and strangled in a “campaign of abuse”.
The children’s guardian, who represents Sara’s siblings, and her father, are opposing the appeal.
In December 2024, Mr Justice Williams, a family court judge himself, granted three other family court judges anonymity after saying he did not believe the media could be trusted to report matters fairly.
He said that naming those involved in Sara’s case was the “equivalent to holding the lookout on the Titanic responsible for its sinking”.
He also suggested that naming the judges could result in a “social media firestorm or virtual lynch mob”.
‘Contrary to all established norms’
Christopher Barnes, for Miss Tickle and Miss Summers, told the court that judges “frequently” sat on controversial cases and the granting of anonymity “ran contrary to all established norms”.
In written submission, he said: “Judges sit in cases concerning terrorism, national security and organised crime without being granted anonymity, and with (presumably) necessary measures taken to properly ensure their safety, and security.
“To seek anonymity for judges, save where (truly) exceptionally justified, is likely to have a corrosive impact on public confidence in the judiciary and the wider justice system.”
Mr Barnes said that Mr Justice Williams had made an “exceptional order against the entirety of the British media”.
“[The ruling] is likely to raise public suspicion and prove counterproductive,” he added.
He told the court that the anonymity order was “unjustified and undermines necessary efforts to increase transparency in the family justice system”.
“It cannot be allowed to stand,” he said.
Sara was known to social services from the day she was born and had been taken into foster care twice before she died.
Care workers repeatedly raised “significant concerns” that Sara was at risk of physical and emotional abuse from her parents.
Despite three sets of hearings beginning in 2013 the allegations were never tested in court and Sara was repeatedly returned to her parents’ care.
Sharif was finally awarded joint residency of Sara at a private hearing in 2019 despite the judge being aware of numerous allegations of abuse and domestic violence against him.
Adam Wolanski, KC, representing The Telegraph and others, said in his submissions that the Titanic comparison made by Mr Justice Williams was “bizarre and wrong”.
He asked whether, if the decision was not overturned, other judges could potentially decide to grant themselves anonymity.
“Are judges in future to make anonymity orders prohibiting identification of themselves? If so, when and in what circumstances?” he said.
Mr Wolanski said judges were the “face of justice itself”. He said that the implications of the order could amount to “censorship”.
He added: “Because of their role as dispensers of justice, judges must expect their decisions and their decision making to be the subject of public scrutiny, including scrutiny which involves ‘vigorous’ and ‘trenchant’ criticism.”
‘Grounded on concern for judges’
Alex Verdan KC, for the children’s guardian, said that the judge’s decision “seemed to be grounded on concern for the wellbeing of judges”.
He added: “For many professionals working within the family justice system, particularly those in a judicial role, the risks are all too real but all too infrequently acknowledged.”
Sharif also opposed the naming of the judge and Cyrus Larizadeh KC said in his written submissions that he was “concerned that no harm should come to the judge(s) who presided in the historic proceedings”.
Surrey county council submitted that the appeal should be allowed.
The hearing before Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby is expected to conclude on Wednesday.
Sir Geoffrey said the appeal “raises questions that are of considerable public importance”.
He later added: “We are here to operate in public. It is what we do. We have to be scrutinised but not be exposed to known violence.”
A judgment is expected in writing at a later date.