Sharif hearing opens

Court of Appeal to decide whether judges can be named

Three appeal judges will begin considering this morning whether reporters can name judges who heard proceedings between 2012 and 2019 involving the family of the murdered schoolgirl Sara Sharif.

The hearing is unusual because there is no suggestion that anonymity was requested by the judges or magistrates who dealt with Sara’s family, or even that they were asked for their views. No criticism of any of their rulings was made by Mr Justice Williams, the High Court judge who decided last month that they must not be identified.

Permission to appeal against his ruling was granted shortly afterwards to two freelance journalists, Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers. Their appeal will be heard by Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby. As master of the rolls, Vos is head of civil justice. King is a family specialist and Warby has a background in media law. The hearing will be live-streamed from Court 4, the largest courtroom at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

King made a reporting restriction order last week. Referring to the earlier hearings, it says that nobody can name or identify any magistrate or judge who heard the historic proceedings.

These judges are to be referred to in the appeal proceedings as CJ/1, CJ/2 and CJ/3. It’s assumed that CJ stands for “circuit judge”.

The reporting restriction will continue “until the disposal of the appeal” — although it would be possible for the Court of Appeal to impose fresh restrictions when it delivers its judgment.

Sara Sharif. Last month, 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.

Apart from Sara, six children are referred to in the reporting restriction order by the letters U, V, W, X, Y and Z. Their names and dates of birth cannot be reported although we are allowed to report their ages in years.

We cannot publish their current addresses although it can be reported that U, V, W, X and Y are living with their paternal grandfather in the city of Jhelum, Pakistan.

The Williams judgment

We can, of course, report what Mr Justice Cavanagh said in passing sentence on Sara’s father, stepmother and uncle last month. And we can report what Williams said about the children — and the judges — in his judgment of 19 December. What follows is my summary:

2010

Concerns about Olga Sharif’s children were first raised in 2010 when the police notified Surrey County Council social services that she was a victim of domestic abuse by Urfan Sharif and that both U and Z had been hit by him.

2012

In 2012, Surrey County Council issued care proceedings.

2013

It appears from the reporting restriction order that family magistrates made an allocation order in January 2013. Sara was born a week later.

A hearing took place in September 2013. Surrey County Council and the children’s guardian agreed that the children should be placed with their parents, subject to a 12-month supervision order and a written agreement.

That decision was approved by a judge.

Williams said the court’s decision was in line with what would have been expected on the available evidence.

2014

In November 2014 the three children were taken into care after a judge granted an emergency protection order.

It was in late 2014 when Urfan Sharif began a relationship with Beinash Batool.

2015

Further care proceedings followed.

Z remained with foster carers. Sara and U accompanied their mother to a a refuge after she had accused Sharif of serious domestic abuse.

In November, all parties agreed that, as Williams put it, “the welfare of the children would be met by a child arrangements order being made for the children to live with Mrs Sharif, for Surrey to have a one-year supervision order and for Mr Sharif to have supervised contact”.

A judge made the agreed order.

Williams added:

As with the position in 2013, that outcome was one which I think the vast majority of child protection professionals, lawyers and judges would have predicted at that time, faithfully applying the relevant law and practice.

2017

An anonymous referral was received that Olga Sharif was hitting the children and leaving them unattended. However, they continued living with her.

2019

Urfan Sharif and Batool applied for a variation of the child arrangements order made in 2015. The court ordered a welfare report from Surrey social services.

Williams said:

On 8 October 2019, Mr Sharif, Ms Batool and Mrs Sharif all attended court in person together with the social worker who wrote the [welfare] report and the Surrey team manager. The judge heard from the social worker and the team manager and from Mrs Sharif.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court made an order that the children should live with Mr Sharif and Ms Batool and that they should have such contact as could be agreed between them and to be supervised either by Ms Batool or another friend or family member or at a contact centre.

Again, Williams offered his opinion of the judge’s decision:

The decision reached at that time on the evidence available was one which to me seems entirely predictable and inevitable…

The suggestion — reported since 9 December [when Williams imposed his reporting restrictions] — that the judge who made the decision on 8 October 2019 was aware of the historic allegations is, with respect, like suggesting that every journalist should be aware of every piece of source material they looked at for an article they wrote four years previously…

In the environment that existed in 2019, and which continues to this day, the work conducted by the social worker (to my judicial eyes at any event) was not obviously flawed but on its face appears appropriate, the recommendation of the social worker was logical and the decision of the judge was what was indicated by faithful application of law and practice mandated.

It was in 2019 that the family courts’ involvement ended. Soon after Sara moved into the family home, the assaults on her began.

2023

Sara was murdered on 8 August 2023, nearly four years after the court had made a final ruling in line with the terms agreed by the parties.

In his judgment last month, Williams made further comments about the earlier rulings:

In this case, the evidence suggests that social workers, guardians, lawyers and judiciary acted within the parameters that law and social work practice set for them.

Certainly to my reasonably well-trained eye there is nothing (save the benefit of hindsight) which indicates that the decisions reached in 2013, 2105 or 2019 were unusual or unexpected. Based on what was known at the time and applying the law at the time, I don’t see the judge or anyone else having any real alternative option.

Having worked in family law for nearly 40 years in legal aid, as a family lawyer and as a full-time judge for seven of them, the way the court and children’s services dealt with the proceedings appears to me to be well within the parameters of proper practice.

The appeal hearing is expected to conclude tomorrow but judgment may be reserved to a later date.