The judges who oversaw family court proceedings involving Sara Sharif in the years before her death have been named following a Court of Appeal ruling.
Judges Alison Raeside, Peter Nathan and Sally Williams were all involved in proceedings related to the 10-year-old between 2013 and 2019.
Sara was placed in the home of her father, Urfan Sharif, and her stepmother, Beinash Batool, following the last of three sets of proceedings.
Judge Raeside, who remains an active judge, dealt with the majority of the hearings related to Sara.
Judges Nathan and Williams – who have both since retired – were involved to a lesser degree.
Several media organisations appealed against a restriction on naming the judges.
Sara was murdered by Sharif and Batool in Woking, Surrey, in 2023. They were jailed for life last year.
The first set of proceedings heard Surrey County Council had a “number of concerns in relation to the care that (Olga Sharif) and Mr Sharif provide Z and U (Sara’s siblings) and are likely to provide to Sara”.
Judge Raeside approved the children being placed under supervision orders, meaning they stayed in their parents’ care.
That decision was supported by the council, the children’s guardian and Sara’s parents.
In November 2014, an emergency hearing was heard by Judge Nathan, after child Z was found with an arm injury consistent with an adult bite mark.
Olga Sharif, Sara’s mother, later accepted a caution after being charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Sara and her two siblings were taken into police protection.
The following day, Judge Raeside extended the same order for a week, with Judge Williams making an interim care order for Sara and one of her siblings as proceedings continued in 2015.
That was Judge Williams’s only involvement in the case.
At the end of the same set of proceedings, a hearing before Judge Raeside was told the local authority was “extremely concerned” that Sara and child U were “likely to suffer significant emotional and physical harm in their parents’ care”, as both alleged the other was violent.
Despite those allegations, however, the council still concluded “the risk can be managed” if Sara was returned to her mother’s care, with supervised contact with her father.
That decision was supported by the children’s guardian, and Judge Raeside approved the plan in May 2015.
Then in 2019, Sara was moved to the property where she was later murdered. She had made accusations of physical abuse by her mother, which were never proven.
In a report for a final hearing in October 2019, a social worker told the court they assessed that “Urfan and Beinash are able to meet Sara and (U’s) needs for safety, stability, emotional warmth and guidance”, adding that Urfan Sharif “appears to have the children’s welfare at heart”.
That move was also supported by the children’s guardian and Sara’s parents and was approved by Judge Raeside.
Social Affairs correspondent
The decision to prevent publication of the names of the judges involved in deciding historic custody arrangements for Sara Sharif was highly unusual.
The successful appeal against it went to the heart of the principles of open justice and the importance of proper transparency and scrutiny of decisions made by judges.
It was overturned after an appeal by a number of media organisations which argued that the ruling by Mr Justice Williams was a serious procedural irregularity that demonstrated an unfair, biased and inappropriate approach to journalists.
Allowing the appeal, the most senior civil judge in England and Wales, Sir Geoffrey Vos, ruled that “the judge lost sight of the importance of press scrutiny to the integrity of the justice system”.
Sir Geoffrey went further, ruling that “judges are in a special position as regards open justice”. He added: “The integrity of the justice system depends on the judge sitting in public and being named, even if they sit in private. The justice system cannot otherwise be fully transparent and open to appropriate scrutiny.”
The safety of the judges concerned was the motivation for the anonymity order. Mr Justice Williams accepted it was an exceptional step not to name them, but said his concern was they would be subject to a “virtual lynch mob” online. He also referenced a 2016 headline in the Daily Mail, picturing three judges with the headline: “Enemies of the People.”
His concerns were not unfounded. In a letter sent to judges on Monday, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that in addition to physical incidents, she was also “increasingly concerned” about threats made to judges on social media. A new taskforce will identify what improvements can be made to safety measures for judges.
When making the anonymity order, Mr Justice Williams also criticised the media, comparing the assumption that press reporting would be fair, accurate and responsible with the “emperor’s new clothes”.
Sir Geoffrey Vos concluded that he “undoubtedly behaved unfairly towards the journalists”.
“It is not for judges to decide what the press should report or how journalists should do their jobs,” he ruled.
Read more:
Body recovered from River Dee amid search for missing sisters
Violence against women and girls is growing, watchdog says
The press was previously barred from reporting the names of the judges and other professionals involved in the case.
The High Court ruled they had “acted within the parameters that law and social work practice set for them”.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled last week the media could name the judges in the interests of open justice.
It had heard the judges wanted to “convey their profound shock, horror and sadness about what happened to Sara Sharif”.
Follow our channel and never miss an update.
Surrey County Council was involved with the Sharif family for several years before Sara’s death.
Concerns about Sara’s care were raised within a week of her birth in 2013, while her parents were known to social services as early as 2010.
Surrey County Council repeatedly raised “significant concerns” the child was likely to suffer physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her parents.
While there were the three sets of family court proceedings mentioned above, allegations that Urfan Sharif was physically abusing Sara and her siblings were never tested in court.
