The Judgement is in - judges involved in historic Sara Sharif hearings CAN be named
Today the Court of Appeal agreed with the media, led by Louise Tickle. [6]
They ruled Mr Justice Williams “got rather carried away” when deciding to ban naming the judges involved in the historic Sara Sharif cases on who she should live wth, that ultimately led to her murder at the hands of her father and stepmother.
My take is that Mr Justice Williams fully expected his judgement to be overturned, but he did it out of a genuine concern that a media frenzy would ensue, with photos of judges and social workers on the front page of the papers. He ruled as he did hoping that by the time it was overruled, some of the heat had been taken out of the situation. I do have some sympathy with his view that naming individuals will distract from a focus on the systemic problems that are the real problem.
In making their judgement, the Court of Appeal judges told Mr Justice Williams off on a number of points (the judgey word is “deprecate” ):
Unfair treatment of the journalists, including sarcasm about the C4 Dispatches that Louise had produced
He shouldn’t have introduced the idea of anonymising the judges on his own, if no-one else was advocating for this
He shouldn’t have used personal anecdotes to justify his criticism of the media
He had no jurisdiction to order the anonymity of the historic judges, and as the Court of Appeal pointed out, the historic orders were public documents and had the judges names on them.
7 days delay was allowed so that the judge’s employers, HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) can put measures in place to protect them.
We can now expect to see the judge’s photos splashed over the front pages next weekend.
I also expect there will be a further appeal regarding the naming of others involved in the past hearings.
Stuart Black, Frimley Green, Surrey
Trustee, Family Support Group
24th January 2025
Williams J v Tickle L
The real battle over Sara Sharif Reporting
The High Court has refused permission for the media to name the Surrey judge and the Surrey Social Workers involved in the previous hearings that resulted in Sara Sharif being put in the care of her father.
It’s listed as Tickle & Ors v Surrey County Council & Ors[1]. The first Ors (others) includes the BBC, ITV, The Guardian, News Group, The Telegraph, Daily Mail. The second Ors are Sara’s killers and her brothers & sisters.
But if you read the judgement, it’s clear this is really a battle between High Court Judge Mr Justice Williams and journalist Louise Tickle.
I admire them both. I‘ve been in front of His Lordship 13 times, in Court 34 off the cold flagstone corridors of the West Green Building at the Royal Courts of Justice, each time v Surrey County Council.
I first spent 17 months battling to secure the future of the three children of a friend who died. Then went back another five times asking for reporting restrictions to be lifted so we can tell the story of went on the first eight times.
The jurisprudence (case law) that Louise Tickle can claim credit for, to lift the veil of secrecy on Family Court reporting, is significant. Louise’s advice was invaluable in making our own application, which resulted in us being the first such family to go through such a process and win the right to reveal what went on in and around Court.
Before our last hearing, the children met His Lordship in his chambers, so he could get their thoughts and feelings about telling our story. We got to see his motorbike models and his leathers, talk about Roblox and the idea of writing a book or a film script.
Sara Sharif is not around to give her views on whether the public should know the names of the social workers, the CAFCASS Guardian, her siblings, or the judge whose decision allowed Sara to live with her murderous father and step-mum.
So, it is down to journalists such as Louise Tickle to make the arguments that those involved in the child protection process should be named.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what drives social workers’ behaviour. I understand that social work is a challenging profession, and none of us are perfect or have infinite resources. However, the field is often hindered by a pervasive defensiveness, which stifles learning. This defensiveness is fuelled by an extreme aversion to risk, making it too precarious to openly acknowledge mistakes. Surrey’s initial response to the verdicts only reinforces those concerns, declining to make any comment other than point out Sara’s murderers hid the truth.
The level of abuse that Sara went through is impossible to comprehend. Yet taking a child away from their family is the most significant intervention a state can make in our lives, save capital punishment, and so it is also understandable that families do not tell the truth to social workers, teachers or judges when children are being harmed.
This combination of defensive social work and families covering up the truth doesn’t make social work any easier.
I’m not in a position to form an opinion on whether Surrey County Council, the Children and Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), or the judge merit criticism in the Sara case.
But it is now clear that Mr Justice Williams is in a position to form an opinion, and this is fundamental to his judgement. His Court has been dealing with the future care of Sara’s siblings since it became clear they had been taken to Pakistan when the perpetrators fled the scene of Sara’s murder. He has spent more than 14 months going through the files, and in his own words has been able to “spend significantly more time reading the material … than any other judge”, including those who decided the previous cases.
The way reporting restrictions cases are judged is by weighing the balance between two rights in the European Convention on Human Rights as ensconced in Schedule 1 of the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998. They are the right to freedom of expression (Article 10) which supports the public interest argument, and the right to respect for family and private life (Article 8). The latter includes the rights of Sara’s siblings to privacy.
In making the judgement, His Lordship had to balance the media arguments of the public interest in naming the social workers and the judge, with arguments against naming, on the grounds that their privacy should be protected.
What is remarkable about the recent application is that it is Mr Justice Williams, not Surrey County Council or CAFCASS who is making the arguments against Ms Tickle’s application.
Because he doesn’t believe, from his own analysis, that any of the social workers or judges involved in the previous proceedings fell short of expectations, then he argues the public interest in naming them has less weight than if they had.
He makes a counter-argument, not made by any of the other parties, that naming individuals when this was a system failure would be counter-productive to the public interest of scrutiny. He argues that because people connect more with names and faces, allowing the individuals to be identified risks diversion of proper attention from systems onto individuals.
Louise’s barrister, the very capable Chris Barnes, argued that the press could be trusted to report responsibly. His Lordship was not convinced, suggesting that this argument that reporting could be assumed to be “fair, accurate and responsible” was an “Emperor’s New Clothes” narrative well known to be false but not called out.
He “called-out” examples:
· A 2018 judgement he made on an Islamic wedding ceremony had been misreported by the Daily Mail as “A British court has recognised sharia law”. [3]
· He said Louise’s Guardian article on his previous judgement on the Sara case published 14th December was not accurate, fair or responsible. [4]
· He suggested that Louise’s 2021 Channel 4 Despatches programme “Torn Apart: Family Courts Uncovered” failed to stand up to scrutiny on all these grounds. [5]
He concluded the public interest side of the balance is weakened by an untrustworthy media, and because naming social workers and judges would undermine the scrutiny of the system through distraction of attention on personalities.
On the privacy side of the balance, he highlighted that judges can be vulnerable to the effects of adverse publicity in the form of abuse, threats or violence, and that social workers could suffer psychological harm if they are put in the public eye.
The balance he thus concludes is not to permit naming of anyone else involved in the case.
Louise is taking it to the Court of Appeal once they resit from 15th January 2025. This is healthy as there are some principles set out in the judgement that are worrisome.
The concept that the public interest weight attached to naming a social worker is dependent on the degree of culpability they may have sets a dangerous precedent.
The concept that no-one should be named until the likely effect on them being named has been assessed[2] is frightening. If a social worker could avoid being named by claiming that could impact their mental health, this would be open to abuse.
Adding the burden of evidencing the degree of culpability or vulnerability of individuals involved would create an intolerable demand on anyone who wanted to name people when telling their story.
If denying responsibility or claiming psychological vulnerability became tools to avoid being named, this would only reinforce the culture of defensiveness.
This would further stifle honesty and learning, which is the real problem the system faces.
Stuart Black, Frimley Green, Surrey
Trustee, Family Support Group
5th January 2025
[1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2024/3330.html
[2] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2024/3330.html para 91
[3] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6018133/Landmark-ruling-sees-British-court-recognise-sharia-law-time.html
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/dec/14/moves-to-appeal-after-court-upholds-ban-on-naming-judges-who-presided-over-sara-sharif-hearings
[5] https://www.channel4.com/press/news/torn-apart-family-courts-uncovered-dispatches
[6] https://www.familysupport.group/s/APPROVED-JUDGMENT-SHARIF.docx