THE Court of Appeal in London has heard a case challenging an order that prevents the media from naming judges involved in family court proceedings concerning Sara Sharif before her murder.
Several media outlets, including the BBC, are arguing that the anonymity order, imposed by Justice Williams in December 2024, should be overturned to promote transparency in the justice system.
Sara Sharif, a 10-year-old girl, was found dead at her home in Woking, Surrey, in August 2023. Her father, Urfan Sharif, 43, and stepmother, Beinash Batool, 30, were sentenced to life imprisonment in 2024 for her murder. Sara’s uncle, Faisal Malik, received a 16-year sentence for causing or allowing her death.
Following their convictions, details of earlier family court proceedings emerged, revealing that Surrey County Council (SCC) had raised serious concerns about Sara’s safety. The council had flagged potential risks of physical and emotional abuse by her parents. Despite these warnings, Sara was placed in her father’s care in 2019.
In his ruling, Justice Williams prohibited the media from naming the judges, social workers, and guardians involved in Sara’s case, citing concerns for their safety.
He argued there was a “real risk” of harm from what he described as a “virtual lynch mob” on social media. The judge compared the situation to holding the lookout on the Titanic responsible for its sinking.
However, media organisations argue that the ban hinders public scrutiny of the family justice system. Chris Barnes, representing journalists Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers, described the anonymity order as “unjustified” and said it undermines efforts to increase transparency. “The order cannot be allowed to stand,” he said.
Adam Wolanski KC, representing the BBC and other news outlets, criticised the Titanic analogy as “bizarre and wrong.” He argued that judges are public figures who must be accountable for their decisions.
“Judges are the face of justice itself. They should expect public scrutiny, even if it is vigorous and critical,” he said.
On the other side, lawyers for Urfan and the children's guardian opposed the appeal. Cyrus Larizadeh KC, representing Urfan, said social media threats had increased since the case received media attention, posing potential risks to judges’ safety.
Documents revealed during the hearing showed that SCC had been involved with Sara’s family since 2010, two years before her birth, following concerns about neglect involving her older siblings. Despite numerous allegations of abuse between 2013 and 2015, these were never fully tested in court. In 2019, a judge approved Sara’s move to live with her father, where she later endured years of abuse.
The appeal is being heard by Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lady Justice King, and Lord Justice Warby. Sir Geoffrey noted that the case raises important questions about the balance between transparency and safety. “We are here to operate in public. It is what we do. We have to be scrutinised but not be exposed to known violence,” he said.
Barnes argued that judges frequently handle high-profile cases, including those related to terrorism and organised crime, without being granted anonymity. He added that the current order could set a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing judges to grant themselves anonymity in future cases.
Surrey County Council, meanwhile, supported the media’s appeal, suggesting that increased transparency could improve public trust in the justice system.
The hearing is expected to conclude soon, with a written judgment to follow at a later date.
