Judges who allowed Sara Sharif to remain in her father’s custody to be named next week

Judges who allowed Sara Sharif to remain in her father’s custody to be named next week

Three judges that oversaw Sara Sharif’s family court cases before she was murdered by her father and stepmother can be named in seven days, a court has ruled.

The Court of Appeal has accepted an appeal after several media organisations challenged Mr Justice Williams’ controversial ruling that those who presided over a string of family court hearings before the 10-year-old’s death could not be identified.

Mr Justice Williams originally cited a “real risk” of harm to them from a “virtual lynch mob” as he said that to suggest family court officials should be held accountable for Sara’s death was “equivalent to holding the lookout on the Titanic responsible for its sinking”.

In the Court of Appeal’s ruling, Sir Geoffrey Vos said: “In the circumstances of this case, the judge had no jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges either on 9 December 2024 or thereafter.”

ADVERTISEMENT

A shocking trial saw Sara’s father, Urfan Sharif, 42, and his wife Beinash Batool, 30, found guilty for her murder, after she suffered a catalogue of 70 injuries, including 25 fractures, human bite marks and burns. Her uncle, Faisal Malik, 29, was convicted for causing or allowing her death while living with them.

Three judges involved in cases related to the care of Sara Sharif can be named in a week (PA)
Three judges involved in cases related to the care of Sara Sharif can be named in a week (PA)

Details later emerged from previous family court proceedings, which revealed that Surrey County Council had repeatedly raised “significant concerns” about Sara’s safety.

The council first had contact with Sharif and Sara’s mother, Olga Domin, in 2010 – more than two years before Sara was born – having received “referrals indicative of neglect” relating to her two older siblings, known only as Z and U.

Within a week of Sara’s birth, in 2013, the authority began care proceedings concerning the children.

ADVERTISEMENT

Between 2013 and 2015, several allegations of abuse were made against Sharif and Domin, which were never tested in court despite three sets of family court proceedings.

One hearing in 2014 told that the council had “significant concerns” about the children returning to Sharif, “given the history of allegations of physical abuse of the children and domestic abuse with Mr Sharif as the perpetrator”.

Sara and her sibling U were returned to the parents. Sibling Z remained in foster care, where they made allegations of physical abuse perpetrated by both parents, as well as allegations of domestic violence.

Urfan Sharif and Beinash Batool were convicted of Sara’s murder (PA)
Urfan Sharif and Beinash Batool were convicted of Sara’s murder (PA)

These allegations were denied by Sharif and Domin and the court did not determine the truth.

In 2015, Domin accused Sharif of hitting her and their children, as well as controlling, violent behaviour. He made counter-allegations against Domin and agreed to go on a domestic violence course, but these allegations were never tested in court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sara would briefly go into foster care and then join her mother in a refuge. While in foster care, a carer noted scars potentially consistent with cigarette burns on Sara and her sibling, which Domin and Sharif said were chicken pox scars.

By November that year, the family concluded the children should live with Domin, allowing supervised visits with Sharif.

In 2019, after Sara alleged Domin had abused her, a judge approved her moving to live with her father in Woking, where she later died after a campaign of abuse.

Sara Sharif was 10 years old when she died (PA)
Sara Sharif was 10 years old when she died (PA)

Freelance journalists Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers were two of many media figures who appealed the decision as they told a hearing on 14 January that the judges should be named in the interests of transparency.

Chris Barnes, for Ms Tickle and Ms Summers, called the judge’s decision “unfair, poorly reasoned and unsustainable”, calling it “out of step with the recognised need to promote transparency, and media reporting, in the Family Court”.

ADVERTISEMENT

The children’s guardian, representing other minors involved in the case, opposed the appeal. Alex Verdan KC, representing the guardian, said the judge’s decision “would seem to be grounded on concern for the wellbeing of judges”.

“For many professionals working within the family justice system, particularly those in a judicial role, the risks are all too real, but all too infrequently acknowledged,” he added.

Cyrus Larizadeh KC, for Urfan Sharif, has also opposed the appeal, as he said in written submissions that he was “concerned that no harm should come to the judge(s) who presided in the historic proceedings”, citing that media reporting had led to “significant threats” being made to judges on social media.