The high court judge who banned the media from reporting the names of the fellow judges who oversaw three sets of family court proceedings relating to the murdered schoolgirl Sara Sharif, on Friday night refused permission to appeal against his decision.
The reporting restriction protecting judges’ identities that was made by Mr Justice Williams on Monday is thought to be unprecedented in relation to family court proceedings.
Two reporters who specialise in reporting on the family justice system – the authors of this piece – lodged the first press application in September 2023 for court documents relating to child protection concerns for Sara Sharif. Backed by Tortoise Media, they will now pursue their application for permission to appeal to the court of appeal against the current judge’s upholding of his decision to anonymise the previous judges.
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 Sara and her sibling could live with him. On a single occasion, a different judge made an emergency protection order.
In a democracy, it is the norm that judges are named in relation to cases over which they preside and the decisions they make.
Scrutiny and accountability for judges is not restricted even in cases that concern highly sensitive political issues, terrorism allegations and organised crime, where there may be a perceived risk to judges.
Applications for judicial anonymity can be made on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, no such application was made.
An application for anonymity would have to be made to the court, either by a judge personally or via HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS).
In 2023, a press application to report on the family court proceedings that placed 10-month-old Finley Boden in the care of his parents, who went on to murder him, led to a judgment in which Mrs Justice Lieven ruled that no argument against naming even magistrates could be sustained in the face of the high public interest in freedom of expression and scrutiny of the judiciary.
