Family court transparency: naming judges in the Sara Sharif case

Ten-year-old Sara Sharif was tragically murdered by her father, Urfan Sharif, and stepmother, Beinash Batool, in August 2023. Her dying has garnered widespread consideration, because of the brutality she suffered by the hands of those that ought to have cared for her. Sara was positioned underneath a Baby Safety Plan from start because of issues concerning the dangers posed by her dad and mom – issues that might resurface all through her quick life. Consequently, Sara was the topic of three household court docket circumstances in 2021, 2014 and 2019 the place Sara and her dad and mom have been assessed by professionals who would supply proof to the court docket. The selections of three judges would form Sara’s life – they ordered that she spend numerous intervals of time in foster care, her mom’s care and in the end, her father’s care.

The tragic circumstances of Sara’s dying increase vital questions: how may a baby, identified to a number of youngster safety professionals and concerned in three household court docket circumstances, be subjected to such a horrific destiny? The solutions might lie within the media inspecting and reporting on the historic court docket paperwork to allow the general public to scrutinise selections made.

The method of the media reporting on these court docket paperwork, together with revealing the names of the professionals and judges concerned, has sparked a authorized battle. This unfolds towards the backdrop of a motion advocating for larger transparency within the household courts.

For a few years, the household courts have operated with important restrictions on the media reporting any details about a case involving youngsters due to their privateness. Traditionally, due to this fact, the household court docket system has been opaque, resulting in public accusations of ‘secret’ justice.

In recent times, there was a sea change in direction of larger transparency. Following a pilot venture, since 27 January 2025, open reporting provisions now apply to all household courts in England and Wales. Which means journalists and authorized bloggers can report on what they see and listen to in household courts with a transparency order defending the anonymity of youngsters and their households.

It’s on this context that journalists Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers, together with 9 huge title media events, utilized to the Excessive Courtroom to report upon the historic court docket circumstances regarding Sara. They mentioned that there was an amazing public curiosity in understanding how Sara got here to be positioned in her father’s care and the effectiveness of safeguarding procedures and so full particulars ought to be reported upon together with the names of the professionals and judges concerned.

Mr Justice Williams heard the case on 9 December 2024 on the cusp of the decision being given within the prison trial of Sharif and Batool. He balanced Article 8 rights to respect for personal and household life (notably these of the youngsters) and the Article 10 freedom of expression rights of the media. He concluded that he would enable the media events to see and report upon many historic case papers topic to restrictions holding the names, ages and guarded traits of Sara’s siblings confidential.

He dominated nonetheless that there be no reporting of any third social gathering together with social staff, guardians and judges. Was that call simply?

He had supposed to rethink the problem of the anonymity of judges in March 2025 when the judges themselves had been notified. The media events nonetheless instantly appealed to the Courtroom of Enchantment saying that the naming of judges is a matter of exceptionally excessive constitutional and public significance and that Mr Justice Williams’ choice was a derogation from the precept of open justice.

The Courtroom of Enchantment thought-about: did the Excessive Courtroom have the facility to anonymise the judges’ identities? Was the choice procedurally irregular? For instance, there was no proof that the judges can be harmed. Lastly, was Mr Justice Williams biased towards the media?

The Courtroom of Enchantment concluded that Mr Justice Williams was mistaken, and his choice couldn’t stand. He had no powers to make the anonymity order he did, and his choice was procedurally flawed. He was closely criticised for getting ‘carried away’ – utilizing his personal experiences to create a case for anonymising the judges slightly than on the regulation and the proof. He behaved unfairly to the journalists find that their reporting to this point had been inaccurate and irresponsible and that his sarcastic remarks concerning the media had no correct place in a court docket judgment.

The Courtroom of Enchantment mentioned that the decide had overlooked the significance of press scrutiny in upholding the integrity of the justice system and that the historic judges have to be named, permitting 7 days for them to organize and to guard themselves from potential hurt.

The landmark shift in transparency in household courts comes at a pivotal second: the identical week that the identities of judges chargeable for the historic selections for Sara Sherif have been revealed.

As of 10am on Friday 31 January the judges have been named as HHJ Raeside, HHJ Nathan and HHJ Williams.

Sara’s heartbreaking story intertwines with core authorized rules of open justice. The message is evident: judges’ selections affecting youngsters have to be topic to scrutiny and their identities identified.

The decision for accountability and openness in household regulation has by no means been stronger.

Sarah Inchley is a companion within the household regulation workforce at TV Edwards Solicitors