The determination of justice took another significant step as the identities of three judges who presided over earlier family court hearings for Sara Sharif have been revealed following a judgement by the Court of Appeal. The announcement, made on January 24, 2025, allows the public to know the names of Judge Alison Raeside, Judge Peter Nathan, and Judge Sally Williams, bringing to light the judicial oversight concerning the tragic case of the ten-year-old girl, who was murdered by her father and stepmother.
Judge Raeside, the primary judge involved, dealt with multiple proceedings connected to Sara between 2013 and 2019, the years leading up to her untimely death at the hands of Urfan Sharif and Beinash Batool. The details of Sara’s case reveal harrowing circumstances, including severe abuse leading up to her death, marked by reports of over 70 injuries, including fractures and burns.
Until now, the judges had been anonymized due to concerns about potential threats stemming from the public outcry after Sara’s death. Mr Justice Williams, who previously ruled against naming the judges claimed there was a “real risk” of harm, stating, “They acted within the parameters of law and social work practice.” Despite these concerns, the appeal court lifted this restriction, siding with various media organizations advocating for transparency.
During the proceedings leading to the 2019 decisions, wherein Sara was eventually allowed to live with her father, the level of oversight by the judiciary has come under heavy scrutiny. Records reveal Surrey County Council’s historical involvement with the Sharif family began even before Sara was born, as the council had received referrals indicative of neglect relating to Sara’s siblings.
Judge Nathan, who also played a lesser role, approved emergency protective orders earlier during the case, which were part of the broader push for safeguarding Sara and her siblings from their home environment. Sadly, warnings expressed by various social services and professionals about the care provided by Urfan Sharif and Olga Domin appeared to have been continuously overlooked.
According to reports disclosed during the hearings, it was found multiple prior incidents of concern existed, such as physical injuries noted among Sara’s siblings attributable to the parents. Yet, it took the courts until 2019 to transition Sara back to parental custody, even after she had been previously taken under police protection due to allegations of assault within the home.
Commentary from legal experts sheds light on the challenging decisions judges must face, especially when delicate issues of child welfare hang upon their rulings. Lord Justice Warby, reflecting on the responsibilities of the judges, noted, "They faced difficult tasks...but are not required to tolerate bullying or abusive behaviour."
Despite the court's decision, the revelations have also drawn attention to the larger framework within which family courts operate, especially as the tragic outcome of Sara’s case prompts systemic questions surrounding child protection measures and judicial accountability.
A growing community outcry has emerged for reform, demanding stronger oversight and mechanisms to prevent such failures from recurring. The emotional toll stemming from Sara's death has become the rallying point for advocates of child welfare reform who are now calling on lawmakers to enact stringent measures ensuring child safety within familial structures.
While the judges of the family court proceedings can now be named, the judicial system must reckon with the lasting consequences surrounding the mismanagement within child protective services. And as concerns grow over the safety of judges judging high-profile cases, the establishment of new protocols aimed at safeguarding judicial integrity and public trust is more pertinent than ever.
This judgement concerning the judges' anonymity sheds light on the broader societal need for accountability, transparency, and open justice, but it also serves as a pointed reminder of the serious obligations embedded within family law.