Ban on naming decide who handed Sara Sharif over to killer father may have a ‘corrosive affect’ on public confidence within the justice system, court docket hears
An unprecedented ban on naming the judge in the Sara Sharif case is a threat to open justice which will corrode public confidence in the system, a court heard yesterday.
Last month a High Court judge sparked outrage after ordering that none of the professionals involved in the case of the 10-year-old murdered by her father and stepmother can be named because the media cannot be ‘trusted to report fairly’.
It is the first time in British legal history that a judge has been granted anonymity.
Yesterday the Court of Appeal was told the ban must be overturned because judges are the ‘face of justice itself’, they make ‘life-and-death decisions’ and keeping their names secret will have a ‘corrosive impact’ on public confidence in the judicial system.
Following the murder conviction of Sara’s father, Urfan Sharif, 42, and stepmother Beinash Batool, 30, Mr Justice Williams banned the naming of professionals in the case including social workers, guardians and the family court judge who made the fateful decision to hand Sharif custody before he beat his daughter to death on August 8, 2023.
The Old Bailey trial heard that the torture of Sara started when she was placed in the care of her father on the recommendation of social workers, despite 16 years of allegations that he had been violent towards women and children.
Mr Justice Williams defended those involved saying he had imposed an anonymity order to prevent a ‘virtual lynch mob’ as he did not believe the media could be trusted to report matters in a fair, accurate and responsible way.
He said: ‘Seeking to argue that individual social workers or guardians or judges should be held accountable is equivalent to holding the lookout on the Titanic responsible for its sinking.’
The Old Bailey trial heard that the torture of Sara started when she was placed in the care of her father on the recommendation of social workers, despite 16 years of allegations that he had been violent towards women and children
Following the murder conviction of Sara’s father, Urfan Sharif, 42, Mr Justice Williams banned the naming of professionals in the case including social workers
Beinash Batool, 30, the stepmother of Sara Sharif
Now several media organisations, including the Daily Mail, are appealing against the decision on the grounds of open justice.
Yesterday it emerged that no one involved in the case had asked Mr Justice Williams to impose an anonymity order, but now the family court judge and two other retired judges who also handled Sara’s case are concerned about their wellbeing.
Adam Wolanski, KC, representing the media, said judges had the power to make ‘life-and-death decisions’ and must face public scrutiny of their judgements, even if that means ‘severe criticism’.
‘Judges are the face of justice itself,’ he said. ‘The judiciary is one of the main repositories of state power.
‘Through the operation of the common law, they make law; they interpret legislation; they are the bulwark against rogue actions of other organs of the state, including those at the highest levels of government; they have power over the liberty of the subject; they make decisions in loco parentis as to the welfare and custody of children, amongst other things.’
He said the anonymity order was ‘bizarre and wrong’ adding: ‘Another word for it is censorship and it’s not the way the English law works’.
Sharif was subject to years of horrific abuse at the hands of her father and stepmother
The family house on Hammond Road in Woking, Surrey, where the body of 10-year-old Sara Sharif was found under a blanket in a bunk bed, on August 10
He argued that the ban had created a worrying precedent: ‘Are judges in future to make anonymity orders prohibiting identification of themselves? If so, when and in what circumstances? What about judges sitting on appeal from cases where judges have been anonymised? Should they too be anonymised?’
Mr Wolanski added: ‘The Judge’s comments displayed a notable and inappropriate hostility towards, and prejudice against, the mainstream media’
Chris Barnes, who represented several freelance journalists added: ‘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.
‘It cannot be allowed to stand.’
The hearing continues.
