The three judges who gave the doomed Sara Sharif back to her killer dad have been revealed following a Court of Appeal decision.
Judge Peter Nathan, Judge Alison Raeside and Judge Sally Williams all played roles in family court proceedings concerning the 10-year-old from 2013 to 2019, reports the Mirror. The final set of proceedings resulted in Sara being placed in the care of her father, Urfan Sharif, and stepmother, Beinash Batool, who were convicted of her murder at their Woking, Surrey home in 2023 and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment last year.
With the High Court ruling that they had “acted within the parameters that law and social work practice set for them”, the press were prohibited from disclosing the names of the judges and other professionals involved in the case until now.
However, the Court of Appeal permitted the media to reveal the judges’ identities from 10am on Friday in the name of open justice, after hearing that all three judges wished “to convey their profound shock, horror and sadness about what happened to Sara Sharif” on January 24. Documents previously released to the press indicated that Surrey County Council had been involved with the Sharif family for several years before Sara’s death, including initiating care proceedings for her just a week after she was born.
The authority’s first interaction with Urfan Sharif and Olga Sharif, Sara’s parents, dates back to 2010, over two years before Sara was born. They had received “referrals indicative of neglect” concerning Sara’s two older siblings, identified only as Z and U.
Judge Raeside, who is still serving, handled most of the proceedings involving Sara, while Judges Nathan and Williams, both now retired, played smaller roles. The initial proceedings revealed that the council had “a number of concerns in relation to the care that (Olga Sharif) and Mr Sharif provide Z and U and are likely to provide to Sara”.
Judge Raeside sanctioned supervision orders for the children, meaning they remained in their parents’ custody – a stance backed by Surrey County Council, the children’s guardian, and Sara’s parents. In November 2014, following the discovery of an adult bite mark on Z, Sara and her siblings were taken into police protection.
Olga Sharif later accepted a caution after being charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Judge Raeside extended the same order for another week the next day, and Judge Williams issued an interim care order for Sara and one of her siblings as proceedings continued into 2015 – her sole involvement in the case.
In a tragic court case, Judge Raeside had been informed that there were severe concerns about the welfare of Sara and her sibling U, with fears they could “likely to suffer significant emotional and physical harm in their parents’ care”. Despite these harrowing allegations of violence between the parents, the authorities decided that Sara could be safely returned to her mum’s care under supervision when around her dad — a move backed by the children’s guardian.
Fast forward to 2019, and Sara tragically ended up moving to a place that would later become the scene of her murder, despite previous accusations of her mother’s physical abuse which remained unproven. In shocking contrast, a social worker seemed reassured before the final hearing in October 2019: “Urfan and Beinash are able to meet Sara and (U’s) needs for safety, stability, emotional warmth and guidance”, noting that Urfan Sharif “appears to have the children’s welfare at heart” — sentiments echoed by the children’s guardian and Sara’s parents, leading to another approval from Judge Raeside.
However, the story took a grim turn as Sara was murdered in August 2023 after enduring extended abuse. Her father Urfan Sharif and Batool were subsequently given life sentences last December, serving minimums of 40 and 33 years respectively, while her uncle Faisal Malik received a 16-year sentence for his role in allowing her death.
During the same period, Mr Justice Williams made a ruling permitting the press to review documents from historic court cases; however, he decreed that identities of social workers, guardians, and judges remain confidential. He noted the expert decisions as “not obviously flawed” and deemed Judge Raeside’s choice to place Sara with her father as one fittingly derived from “indicated by faithful application of law and practice mandated”.
Justice Williams observed: “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.”
He added, “Certainly to my reasonably well-trained eye there is nothing, save the benefit of hindsight, which indicates that the decisions reached in 2013, 2015 or 2019 were unusual or unexpected.”
He further justified the professional decisions by stating, “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. Several media organisations, including the Mirror, appealed against the restriction on naming judges.Appeal judges ruled earlier this month that the judges should be named, finding that Mr Justice Williams was wrong to anonymise them.But Sir Geoffrey Vos, sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby, added that while judges “.
A contentious issue arose when several media houses, including the PA news agency, challenged the prohibition on disclosing judges’ names. The appeal led to a reversal earlier this month, with appeal judges asserting that judges should indeed be identifiable, countering Mr Justice Williams’s previous anonymity order.
Nonetheless, Sir Geoffrey Vos, accompanied by Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby, underscored that although judges “are required to show resilience and fortitude”, it is unwarranted for them “to tolerate bullying or abusive behaviour“.
He stated: “It should be noted that the historic judges had, as in all cases of this type, the difficult task of assessing the risk of future harm which could only be done against the background of the evidence before them.”
Don’t miss the latest news from around Scotland and beyond.Sign up to our daily newsletter.