Sara Sharif, 10, was found dead in a bunk bed at the family home in Woking, Surrey, in August 2023, after suffering “horrific abuse”
A damning review has revealed that murdered 10 year old Sara Sharif was consistently “failed by the safeguarding system” throughout her life, with her father’s history of domestic abuse repeatedly overlooked and downplayed.
The report highlighted a catalogue of missed opportunities, concluding that despite a wealth of information being available to authorities, even experienced safeguarding professionals were “groomed and manipulated” by Sara’s killer father, Urfan Sharif.
Sara’s life was marked by “horrific abuse” at the hands of Sharif and her stepmother, Beinash Batool, before her body was discovered in a bunk bed at the family home in Woking, Surrey, in August 2023.
Sharif and Batool were handed life sentences with minimum terms of 40 years and 33 years respectively in December last year, after being convicted of Sara’s murder. Her uncle, Faisal Malik, was also jailed for 16 years for his role in her death.
The review, which scrutinised the handling of Sara’s case by police, healthcare, social services, and education, painted a damning picture of systemic failures, stating that Sara was “a victim of domestic abuse from birth onwards”. The report described Sara as a “beautiful little girl, full of personality with a lovely smile”, but her reality was marred by day-to-day abuse that became normalised due to the manipulation of her father and stepmother, who convinced her that she deserved the mistreatment.
The local child safeguarding practice review, a 62-page document published on Thursday, characterised Sara’s family life as “complicated” and held those convicted of her death as “ultimately responsible”. However, the review also identified “many points at which different action could, and we suggest, should, have been taken” to prevent Sara’s tragic fate, concluding that she “was not protected from abuse and torture”.
In response, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson acknowledged the review’s findings, stating that it “rightly highlights the glaring failures and missed opportunities across all agencies which led to Sara’s death”.
Surrey County Council issued an apology, expressing deep regret and assuring that “robust action to address” has been taken to address the failings, with a commitment to implementing all of the review’s recommendations. The report criticised the handling of Urfan Sharif’s domestic abuse, stating that its severity and significance were “overlooked, not acted on and underestimated by almost all professionals” involved with Sara and her family.
Sara was placed on a child protection plan before her birth, and subsequent family court hearings led to the council initiating proceedings to take her into care shortly after she was born. In her tragically short life, she transitioned from the care of both parents to living solely with her mother, Olga, and having only supervised visits with her father due to his history of domestic abuse.
However, in 2019, following Sharif’s allegations that Sara had suffered abuse under her birth mother’s care, she was relocated to live with her father and stepmother. The review chillingly referred to this pair as a “lethal combination” who “should never have been trusted” with her care.
The review highlighted that text messages between Batool and her sisters, unearthed during the police investigation, revealed that Sara had started being assaulted by her father “soon after she moved in with him”. The report criticised the “overall process” of court proceedings, which decided that Sara should reside with her father and stepmother, for not maintaining a “sufficient focus” on Sara’s needs, cultural heritage, and the ability of Sharif and Batool “to provide safe care”.
It pointed out numerous instances throughout Sara’s life when “more robust safeguarding processes were needed to properly investigate the possibility that she was experiencing significant harm“. These included a two-day absence from school in March 2023, five months prior to her death, after which she returned appearing “quiet and coy” and sporting bruises on her cheek, eye, and chin.
Despite Sara’s school making a referral to social services, the case was swiftly closed within days, without any involvement from the police. In the following month, Sharif sent an email to the school stating his intention to homeschool his daughter – a decision the review believes was undoubtedly made “to keep Sara hidden from view in the last weeks of her life”.
This was followed by a series of unfortunate oversights, including delayed correspondence and outdated home address details on the digital system. This led to a council worker visiting the wrong location just two days before Sara’s tragic death. The review pointed out that if Surrey Council had adhered to its policy on home education, which includes a home visit within 10 days of notification, it’s likely that “it is likely that the abuse of Sara would have come to light, or (her) father’s refusal to co-operate would have undoubtedly raised a safeguarding alert”.
The review criticised Surrey children’s services for failing to “identify that Sara was at risk of being abused by her father, stepmother and uncle”. It also noted that “expected robust safeguarding processes were not followed” and Sara’s “‘voice’ expressed through her change in demeanour was not heard”.
Sara ‘appeared cheerful’ during ongoing abuse
Despite the abuse she was enduring, Sara never spoke about it, the review added. Instead, she appeared “cheerful and loyal to her father, whilst he continually groomed and manipulated her, and the professionals who could have helped her”.
At the age of eight, Sara began wearing the hijab in 2021, which the review suggested concealed bruises and injuries to her face and head during the final period of her life.
The report stated that while the school demonstrated “appropriate curiosity”, there was no evidence in the children’s services or health records that race, culture, religion or heritage were “properly considered”. Expert advice from the local Muslim community suggested it would have been “highly unusual” for such a young child to choose to wear it when other family members did not.
The review concluded that despite available information, “opportunities were lost to join up all the dots and recognise the dangers faced by Sara once she moved in with her father and stepmother”.
Among 15 recommendations, the authors urged improvements in handling referrals to children’s services. This includes better resources and capacity, staff qualifications and experience; and updated statutory guidance requiring a formal meeting with parents and professionals if an application is made to home school a child previously known to children’s social care.
Reacting to the local review, the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel said we can honour Sara’s memory “by understanding what happened to her and by redoubling our efforts to protect children from those who set out to harm them”.
Its chair, Sir David Holmes, commented: “This comprehensive review contains deep learning for everyone working in child protection.
“It reminds us of the vital role of robust safeguarding processes in the elective home education system, the need for a greater focus on the devastating impact of domestic abuse on children, and the need always to give enough weight to safeguarding risks in the context of private law proceedings involving vulnerable children.”