On 14 and 15 January the Court of Appeal heard an appeal by journalists Louise Tickle, Hannah Summers and several media organisations against an order made by Mr Justice Williams to keep the identities of Family Court judges anonymous. These judges had made historical decisions about the living arrangements and welfare of Sara Sharif and her siblings between her birth and 2019. Journalists and legal bloggers have been allowed access to many of the court documents before the Court of Appeal. We previously wrote about this here: Court of Appeal to consider the idea of the anonymous judge.
The hearing was in public and live streamed for anyone to watch. We were able to attend the hearing as legal bloggers, both in person and via the live feed, and to post live updates of what we heard as the hearing unfolded. You can read these posts via our Bluesky feed at @seethrujustice.transparencyproject.org.uk with posts that began January 14 2024, 10.22am and ended January 15 2025, 1.07pm. (This was an interesting challenge which we will write about separately.) As legal bloggers we also managed to gain access to the skeleton arguments that were before the court, which helped us make sense of what the lawyers and judges were saying, and to make our posts more informative.
Below we briefly summarise the media coverage of the hearing (click on each headline to follow the link). Reporters have been able to write in-depth about what happened because of the release of the documents and the live streaming of the proceedings. A video has now been posted on the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) YouTube channel.
BBC News (14th January, 2025) – Appeal begins to name Sara Sharif’s family court judges
This brief article explains that Mr Justice Williams was concerned about a risk of harm to the judges from a “virtual lynch mob”. Chris Barnes, the barrister acting for Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers argued that the anonymity decision was made on a “wholly generalised and insufficient basis” and “undermines necessary efforts to increase transparency in the family justice system”. Adam Wolanski KC, who represented the news organisations, described parts of the judgement as “bizarre and wrong”. The lawyers for Mr Sharif said that he opposed the appeal but the local authority, Surrey County Council, that it should be allowed. This report inaccurately says that the children’s guardian opposed the appeal – this is an error that has been corrected in some reports. The guardian in fact took a neutral position on the appeal.
Law Gazette (14th January, 2025) – Court of Appeal hears challenge to High Court ban on naming judges in Sara Sharif family case
The Law Society Gazette give more details of the arguments put forward by the media and Mr Sharif’s lawyers.
The Guardian (14th January, 2025) – Ban on naming Sara Sharif care case judges would have ‘corrosive impact’, court told
The Guardian primarily cites details of the arguments put forward by the media.
Sky News (15th January, 2025) – Judges who oversaw Sara Sharif care cases before her murder fear safety risks for their families if they are named
A longer article on Sky News includes a generalised response by the three unnamed judges who now have serious concerns about the risks that may arise if they are identified.
Daily Mail (15th January, 2025) – Ban on naming judge who handed Sara Sharif over to killer father will have a ‘corrosive impact’ on public confidence in the justice system, court hears
The Daily Mail comments that this “unprecedented ban” had “sparked outrage”.
The Sun (14th January; updated 15th January, 2025) – COURT CALL Banning journalists from naming judge who handed Sara Sharif over to killer dad ‘will raise suspicions of cover up’
The phrase ‘will raise suspicions of cover up’ does not actually appear in the text of the article and we assume this is a paraphrase of Mr Barnes’s submission that anonymising judges is likely to have a corrosive impact on public confidence.
Joshua Rozenberg blog (16th January, 2025) – Should judges be named?
On his blog ‘A Lawyer Writes’, Joshua Rozenberg quotes from the various submissions including those made on behalf of the three judges. Rozenberg concludes with a comment by Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers that “It is important not to lose sight of the fact that our application has lead to release of a considerable amount of documentation and that Mr Justice Williams considered that the public interest in understanding how decisions came to be made for Sara and her siblings was compelling.”
Press Gazette (14th January, updated 15th January, 2025) – Media say ban on naming Sara Sharif care judges ‘cannot be allowed to stand’
This is a useful overview of the issues that rose in the hearing.
The Times (£) (14 January 2024) – Anonymity ‘wrong’ for judge who gave Sara Sharif’s father custody
As one of the media parties who instructed him, The Times focuses on the submissions of Adam Wolansky KC, who told the court: “Another word for it is censorship and is not the way English law works.
“The judge saw fit to step into the editor’s shoes.
“Judges are expected to be robust. Even in courts dealing with the most sensitive matters such as immigration appeals, security matters, judges are identified.”
We have a small favour to ask!
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. We’re working to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work in it. We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page.