Three judges overseeing family law proceedings related to Sara Sharif's care could be appointed next week, the court has ruled.
A Supreme Court judge sparked outrage in December After ordering that none of the professionals involved in the case of the 10-year-old murdered by her father and stepmother can be named because the media cannot be 'trusted to report fairly'.
Several media organisations, including the Daily Mail, challenged the ban on naming the judges and in a ruling on Friday, three judges of the Court of Appeal said the three unnamed judges could be identified in seven days.
Sir Geoffrey Vos said: 'In the circumstances of this case, the judge had no jurisdiction to anonymise the historical judges on 9 December 2024 or thereafter. He was wrong to do this. '
The media was previously allowed to report that Surrey County Council had concerns about Sara's father, Urfan Sharif, as early as 2010 and that Sara was involved in three sets of the family's cases before she was murdered by Sharif and her stepmother, Beinash Batool, at their home in Woking, Surrey.
Documents showed that Surrey County Council first contacted Sharif and Sara's mother, Olga Sharif, in 2010 – more than two years before Sara was born – after receiving 'references indicative of neglect' in relation to her two older siblings, known only as Z and U.
A High Court judge sparked outrage after ordering that none of the professionals involved in the case of 10-year-old murdered by her father and stepmother can be named
Following the murder conviction of Sara's father, Urfan Sharif, 42, Mr Justice Williams banned the naming of professionals in the case including social workers
Pictured: Beinash Batool, 30, Sara Sharif's stepmother
The authority commenced care proceedings in January 2013 in relation to Z and U, involving Sara within a week of her birth.
Several allegations of abuse were made between 2013 and 2015 that were never tested in court, with one hearing in 2014 told that the council had “major concerns” about the children returning to Sharif, “given the history of allegations of physical abuse of the Children and domestic violence with Mr Sharif as the perpetrator'.
In 2019, a judge approved Sara to live with her father at the home in Woking, where she later died after a campaign of abuse.
Sharif and Batool were jailed for life for Sara's murder in December, with minimum terms of 40 years and 33 years.
Her uncle, Faisal Malik, was imprisoned for 16 years after being convicted of causing or allowing her death.
Mr Justice Williams defended those involved, saying he had imposed an anonymity order to prevent a 'virtual lynch mob' as he did not believe the media could be trusted to report cases in a fair, accurate and responsible manner to report.
He said: 'Trying to argue that individual social workers or guardians or judges should be held responsible is like turning a blind eye to the Titanic responsible for the sinking.'
Adam Wolanski QC, representing the media, said judges had the power to make “life-and-death decisions” and should face public scrutiny of their judgments even if it meant “severe criticism”.
Sara was subjected to years of horrific abuse at the hands of her father and stepmother
The family home on Hammond Road in Woking, Surrey, where the body of 10-year-old Sara Sharif was found under a blanket in a bunk bed, on August 10
“Judges are the face of justice itself,” he said. 'The judiciary is one of the most important repositories of state power.
'By the operation of common law they make law; They interpret legislation; They are the bulwark against rogue actions by other organs of the state, including those at the highest levels of government; They have power over the freedom of the subject; They make decisions in loco parentis regarding the welfare and custody of children, among other things. '
He said the anonymity order was 'bizarre and wrong', adding: 'Another word for that is censorship and it is not the way English law works.'
He argued that the ban had set a worrying precedent: 'Are judges in the future to issue anonymity orders banning the identification of oneself? If so, when and under what circumstances? What about judges who are on appeal from cases in which judges have been anonymized? Should they also be anonymized? '
Mr Wolanski added: 'The judge's comments showed a remarkable and inappropriate hostility towards and bias against the mainstream media'
Chris Barnes, who represented several freelance journalists, added: 'To seek anonymity for judges, except where truly exceptionally justified, is likely to have a corrosive impact on public confidence in the judiciary and the wider justice system.
'It cannot stand to stand.'
