---

Judges to be named after ‘unfair’ treatment of press

An England-and-Wales judge “got carried away” with “inappropriate and unfair” remarks about the media, the Court of Appeal in that jurisdiction has ruled.

Media organisations have won an appeal to be able to name this week three judges who had dealt with murdered schoolgirl Sara Sharif’s case in the family courts.

Mr Justice Williams ruled last year that three judges involved in historic court cases relating to Sara Sharif, as well as social workers and guardians, could not be named due to a “real risk” of harm from a “virtual lynch mob”.

Transparency

News organisations, including the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary unit, had previously appealed against Mr Justice Williams's decision on the grounds of transparency about the court case relating to the murder of the ten-year-old.

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls of the Court of Appeal, wrote that Mr Justice Williams “undoubtedly behaved unfairly towards the journalists and Channel 4” and allowed the appeals against judicial anonymity, which had not been requested by any party involved.

Sara's father Urfan Sharif and her stepmother Beinash Batool were jailed for life in December for “torture” and “despicable” abuse that led to her death.

‘No jurisdiction’

On Friday (24 January), Sir Geoffrey Vos said: "In the circumstances of this case, the judge had no jurisdiction to anonymise the historical judges either on 9 December 2024 or thereafter. He was wrong to do so.”

He continued: “If, notwithstanding the lack of evidence to that effect, the judge was concerned about their being named, there were other, more appropriate, ways to protect them.”

He added: “Judges will sit on many types of case in which feelings run high” and “where there may be risks to their personal safety.”

‘Sarcastic remark’

“Such sarcasm has no proper place in a court judgment,” Sir Geoffrey Vos said.

Two of the judges are retired, with the third still on the bench.

Freelance journalists Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers, who were involved in the reporting and subsequent legal challenge, wrote at the weekend that: “It is a cornerstone of open justice that the names of judges – from magistrates up to supreme court justices – are known to the public in respect of the weighty and life-changing decisions they make.”

They added that it was a shame that Mr Justice Williams got ‘carried away’, given that the permissions Williams gave the media – to publish information in the public interest – were an important win for transparency and public accountability, and a credit to him.

'Scrutiny, not blame'

“Unfortunately, he has arguably increased the intensity of any public reaction to the judges by placing them so firmly in the spotlight,” they wrote.

The reporters added that their challenge to the ban was about "scrutiny, and not blame", and that court reporters doing their jobs did not expect to have their integrity impugned.