The Court of Appeal has ruled that the names of the judges involved in Sara Sharif's family court cases can be disclosed, overturning previous orders that aimed to protect them from potential backlash. Media outlets challenged the decision, citing the need for accountability and transparency. Sara, a ten-year-old, suffered severe abuse, leading to her tragic death, prompting concerns over how family court decisions were made given previous warnings about her safety by social services. The revelations about her case have sparked outrage and debates about judicial responsibility and the impact of secrecy on public trust in the justice system.
Mr Justice Williams originally cited a real risk of harm to them from a virtual lynch mob as he said that to suggest family court officials should be held accountable for Sara's death was equivalent to holding the lookout on the Titanic responsible for its sinking.
Lawyers argued the ban would have a corrosive impact on public confidence in the judiciary and wider justice system.
Details later emerged from previous family court proceedings, which revealed that Surrey County Council had repeatedly raised significant concerns about Sara's safety.
Freelance journalists Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers were two of many media figures who appealed the decision as they told a hearing on 14 January that the judges should be named in the interests of transparency.
Collection
[
|
...
]