Sara Sharif case: journalists win appeal to name family court judges

Journalists including a TBIJ reporter have won an appeal to name the judges who oversaw the family court proceedings relating to the care of Sara Sharif before she was murdered.

The landmark ruling, handed down by three court of appeal judges, represents a defence of open justice and a recognition of the media’s role in scrutinising decisions made by the courts.

It comes ahead of new transparency rules being rolled out across family courts in England and Wales after the success of a two-year reporting pilot.

The ban on naming the judges was imposed by Mr Justice Williams at a high court hearing in December. The judge permitted the release of dozens of documents relating to the welfare of 10-year-old Sara, who was placed in the care of her father and stepmother. They were jailed for her murder last month.

However, he also said the media could not name three circuit judges who had overseen the family proceedings – as well as other third parties including social workers guardians – due to the risk of harm from a “virtual lynch mob”.

At an appeal hearing earlier this month, it was argued that this “unprecedented” order could not be justified.

On Friday, the court of appeal ruled that anonymising the judges was “misguided” and that Williams made the order without any legal basis.

In a judgment, master of the rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos wrote: “In the circumstances of this case, the judge had no jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges either on 9 December 2024 or thereafter. He was wrong to do so.”

The ban will be lifted in seven days, giving the judges time to prepare themselves and for any protective measures to be put in place.

The appeal, brought by two journalists – Louise Tickle and the writer of this piece, with backing from Law for Change – was won on three grounds. Primarily that the judge did not have the power to order the anonymisation, but also on the basis of serious procedural irregularity and unfairness towards the media.

The arguments advanced on behalf of the journalists at a hearing on 14 and 15 January were supported by a number of media organisations that also challenged the ban and were later made appellants, including the BBC and Press Association.

Williams had said that holding the individuals involved in historical proceedings responsible for Sara’s death was the “equivalent to holding the lookout on the Titanic responsible for its sinking”. The barrister Chris Barnes, acting for Summers and Tickle, told the court that this analogy was “problematic”.

Adam Wolanski KC, representing the BBC and other news organisations, said the comparison was “bizarre and wrong”.

‘Hostile approach to the media’

In written submissions to the court, Barnes said Williams’ decision was “unfair, poorly reasoned and unsustainable”, as well as “out of step with the recognised need to promote transparency and media reporting in the family court”.

He said that seeking anonymity for judges was likely to have a “corrosive impact” on public confidence in the justice system. Barnes also put to the court that Williams had demonstrated “a wholly unacceptable and hostile approach to the media generally, and the appellants specifically”. He told the court of appeal that journalists attending court should not have their integrity questioned by a judge.

The appeal was opposed by Sara’s father, Urfan Sharif, who was convicted for her murder along with her stepmother Beniash Batool. They were sentenced to 40 and 33 years respectively.

In 2019, a judge approved Sara moving to live with Sharif at the home in Woking where she later died after a campaign of abuse.

Sharif’s barrister Cyrus Larizadeh said in written submissions that his client was “concerned that no harm should come to the judge(s) who presided in the historic proceedings”.

However Vos highlighted that no party had suggested that such anonymity was necessary and that there had been no evidence filed supporting such an order. He said there were more appropriate ways to protect the judges.

A note filed on behalf of the three judges – two of whom are retired – said none had requested anonymity but that they now had serious concerns about the risk that might arise.

Vos also allowed the appeal on the basis of a procedural irregularity, stating that Williams should have asked the parties for submissions and evidence prior to making his decision.

He also said Williams had been unfair to say with “such vehemence” that the journalists had been guilty of “inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible reporting” after they reported that he had refused them permission to appeal. In fact he had adjourned his decision to an unknown date.

Vos wrote: “The decision to adjourn the journalists’ application for permission to appeal” was “akin to dismissing the application” and the distinction was “a technical one”.

Barrister Barnes noted that Williams had “drawn some link” between his clients and the journalists involved in the phone hacking scandal.

Vos said there were examples in the judgment of the judge taking an “excessively strong line about the quality of reporting in other cases”. He said Williams made a mistake in thinking he could trawl through his own experiences to create a case for anonymising judges.

He added: “In short, the judge’s judgment demonstrates, to put the matter moderately, that he got carried away.”

‘Special position’

The appeal judges cited case law that shows the “special position” judges occupy with regards to open justice.

“The integrity of the justice system depends on the judge sitting in public and being named, even if they sit in private,” wrote Vos. “The justice system cannot otherwise be fully transparent and open to appropriate scrutiny.”

He said: “Judges sit on various types of cases where there may be risks to their personal safety [such] as cases involving national security, criminal gangs and terrorism.”

“The first port of call is not, and cannot properly be the anonymisation of the judge’s name”, Vos wrote.

He said Williams was wrong in his suggestion that that there is only a limited interference with open justice because the historic judges’ names add little to the story.

He wrote: “It is not for judges to decide what the press should report or how journalists should do their jobs.”