Nameless judges

Any move towards secret justice needs open public debate.

“There is no person known to law as the anonymous justice of the peace,” said Lord Justice Watkins VC in 1986. Sitting with Lords Justices Russell and Mann, he upheld a challenge brought by the Observer journalist David Leigh against magistrates at Felixstowe who had refused to give their names.

And Watkins did not confine his remarks to magistrates:

Because the three appeal judges were sitting in the High Court and because these comments were obiter — not part of the court’s reasoning — they are not binding on other judges in the High Court. But they still carry persuasive authority.

And as recently as last year, Mrs Justice Lieven ruled that reporters could name family magistrates and a legal adviser who had allowed a young child called Finley Boden to be returned to the care of his parents. Stephen Boden, 30, and Shannon Marsden, 22, murdered Finley less than six weeks later.

Sara Sharif was murdered by her father Urfan Sharif and her stepmother Beinash Batool. They will be sentenced by Mr Justice Cavanagh tomorrow. Sara’s paternal uncle will be sentenced for allowing or causing her death.

Why then did Mr Justice Williams, a judge of the High Court family division, decide last week to ban the media from reporting the names of fellow judges who oversaw three sets of family court proceedings relating to the murdered schoolgirl Sara Sharif? Williams subsequently refused reporters permission to appeal, presumably on the basis that the Court of Appeal could grant permission if it chose to.¹

The first press application for court documents relating Sharif was lodged in September last year by Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers, freelance journalists specialising in family law. With the backing of Tortoise Media they will now ask the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal.

Writing in the Observer, the reporters revealed that two other judges were involved:

The papers released to the press show that one judge presided over all three family court cases, which included two sets of care proceedings brought by Surrey County Council, and one private law application made by Urfan Sharif asking the court to agree that [his daughter] Sara and her sibling could live with him. On a single occasion, a different judge made an emergency protection order.

In a separate report, they report they describe the first judge as a “senior judge”.

Comment

There may be good reasons for protecting the identity of the judges concerned in this case. Perhaps there have been credible and specific threats to their safety. But we are entitled to know if that is so.

Williams should immediately publish his reasons for banning publication of the judges’ names. That can be done while maintaining their anonymity. He should also publish short reasons for refusing permission to appeal. Whatever he may think, the Court of Appeal will surely wish to consider this unprecedented departure from open justice.

Nearly 40 years on from the Felixstowe Justices ruling, the risks to all involved in cases such as this may well be greater than before. But any move towards secret justice cannot be justified without open public debate.

Update 1700:

1. It emerged later that the application for permission had ben adjourned, not refused. See coverage on 19 December and 23 December.