Judges could be named

Court of Appeal to decide on anonymity for judges in Sara Sharif case

The Court of Appeal has agreed to consider whether a High Court judge was right to grant anonymity to other judges who had dealt with the case of the murdered schoolgirl Sara Sharif. A two-day hearing has been arranged for the middle of next month.

Sara Sharif. On Tuesday, her father Urfan Sharif was sentenced to a minimum of 40 years in prison for murder and her stepmother Beinash Batool received a minimum of 33 years. Her uncle Faisal Malik was sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment for causing or allowing her death.

In a ruling earlier this month, Mr Justice Williams ordered that nobody referred to in earlier family hearings could be named, including any judge who heard the historic proceedings. Permission to appeal against inclusion of the passage in italics was granted this morning by the master of the rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, after an application by two journalists.

Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers had argued that Williams’s decision to ban publication of the judges’ names was:

• unjust because the judge failed to give reasons at the time;

• wrong because anonymity for a judge could not be justified by the human rights convention;

• wrong because there was no evidence; and

• wrong because it was inimical to the proper administration of justice.

The senior appeal said today:

I have decided to grant the journalists permission to appeal the highlighted part of the judge’s order on the grounds that the arguments advanced in their appellants’ notice and supporting skeleton argument have a real prospect of success.

Moreover, the appeal raises questions that are of considerable public importance and it is in the public interest that the Court of Appeal considers them.

The hearing on January 14 and 15 will be live-streamed to the public.

Comment

I wrote on Monday:

Williams should immediately publish his reasons for banning publication of the judges’ names. That can be done while maintaining their anonymity…

Whatever he may think, the Court of Appeal will surely wish to consider this unprecedented departure from open justice.

Although Williams had been planning to give his reasons after the court vacation, he has now drafted a judgment of 66 pages which is likely to be published later today.

It was widely reported that Williams had refused the journalists permission to appeal against his ruling. I now understand that their application for permission to appeal was adjourned rather than refused.

Update 20 December: Williams’s judgment has now been published. In normal spacing it runs to 34 pages. My analysis of it will be published on Monday.