The judge and social workers who agreed that Sara Sharif’s father could have custody of her have been given anonymity.
At a private court hearing at Family Court in London in 2019, Urfan Sharif and Beinash Batool, Sara’s stepmother, won custody of the child.
Four years later, the 10-year-old was discovered dead on a bunkbed at her home in Woking, Surrey having suffered months of torture involving beatings, burnings and restraints at their hands.
Sharif and Batool were convicted on Wednesday of Sara’s murder following an eight-week trial at the Old Bailey.
Following an application by the press, including The Telegraph, the details of the Family Court hearing and others in the years before were made public for the first time on Wednesday.
The documents showed that the court was aware Sharif had been abusing Sara’s siblings for years – and been arrested for domestic abuse – but still gave him joint custody.
Sharif and Batool were convicted on Wednesday of Sara’s murder following an eight-week trial at the Old Bailey – Surrey Police
They also revealed that in a report ordered by the court, social workers at Surrey County Council recommended that Sara should live with Sharif and Batool and have supervised contact once per fortnight with her mother, Olga Domin.
But in an exceptional decision, the press was banned from reporting the names of any social workers, guardians, or judges named in the proceedings.
The order was made by a fellow Family Court judge, Mr Justice Williams, who was concerned that there could be a “social media pile on”.
In his order, which he is now reviewing, Mr Justice Williams said: “The name of any third parties referred to in the historic proceedings for the avoidance of doubt including social worker, guardian, other named professionals and experts instructed in the proceedings and any judge who heard the historic proceedings.”
The decision came after the verdicts were announced.
Speaking afterwards, Dame Rachel de Souza, the children’s commissioner, said that it was clear that more transparency and data sharing was needed between organisations involved in the care of children.
She added: “There can be no doubt that Sara was failed in the starkest terms by the safety net of services around her.
“Even before she was born, she was known to social care – and yet she fell off their radar so entirely that by the time she died, she was invisible to them all.”
During the hearing in 2019, Ms Domin was told by the judge she should be “grateful” to Batool for offering to supervise visits between her and her daughter.
They said: “It would be good if you could at least be courteous to her [Batool], be polite to her, be slightly grateful even to her.”
An expert told the court that Sara had “a really good relationship” with Batool and that she was “a point of safety” for the young girl.
Sara’s family had been known to social workers since 2010 when there were allegations that the children were victims of neglect and domestic violence between Sharif and his wife.
Police reports dating from May 2010 to August 2012 raised repeated concerns about the family. One of the children, then aged three, was found alone in a shop.
In 2013, Sharif and Ms Domin made a written agreement with Surrey Children’s Services that they were not to use physical chastisement on Sara.
They were also to ensure that Sara could not access the front door and get outside of the property without adult supervision after another sibling was previously found outside of the home alone.
On Thursday, Sir Keir Starmer said that “we clearly need answers as to how this could have happened”.
He added: “We’re focused on doing everything within our power to stop this type of terrible crime happening again”.