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.
Related: Inexperienced social worker did not identify Sara Sharif’s father as posing any risk
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.
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.
Source: Moves to appeal after court upholds ban on naming judges who presided over Sara Sharif hearings