The court said the judges who placed Sara Sharif under the guardianship of the father who killed her

Family Court judges who allowed murdered schoolgirl Sarah Sharif to live with her abusive father and stepmother should not be protected by anonymity, the Court of Appeal has heard.

Lawyers have argued that the controversial ban on identifying judges who oversaw a series of family court proceedings before his death would “have a devastating effect on public confidence in the judiciary and the wider justice system”.

The 10-year-old endured a horrific campaign of abuse in Woking, Surrey, in which she was routinely hooded, restrained and beaten, while living with her father Irfan Sharif and his wife Binash Betul in Woking, Surrey, a court heard last year. was

His battered body was found in the family home in August 2023 after his relations fled to Pakistan. He had suffered a catalog of 70 injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, 25 fractures, burns to his buttocks, human bite marks and burns.

Sharif, 42, and Betul, 30, were found guilty of her murder, while her uncle, Faisal Malik, 29, who lived with them, was convicted of causing or allowing her death.

Irfan Sharif and Binash Betoul were convicted of Sara's murder — Irfan Sharif and Binash Betoul were convicted of Sara’s murder (Media PA)

After the shocking trial, details of previous family court proceedings were released which revealed Surrey County Council had repeatedly raised “significant concerns” that Sarah may have been physically and emotionally abused by her parents, amid claims that that his father was physically He harasses her and her siblings.

Despite three family court hearings, the allegations were never tested in court, and Sarah was repeatedly placed in her parents’ care until she was finally placed with her father and stepmother in 2019, where she was murdered in 2023.

Mr Justice Williams allowed a report of the historic family case to be given, but ordered that the media could not name the three judges involved, as well as other “third parties”, including social workers.

He said this was because of the “real risk” of them being harmed by “virtual lynch mobs”.

Freelance journalists Louise Tickle, Hannah Summers and several media organizations are protesting the decision, saying at Tuesday’s hearing that the judges should be cited for transparency.

Sara Sharif suffered more than 25 broken bones, iron burns, burns and human bites during a campaign of harassment before her murder. (Media PA)

Chris Barnes, for Ms Tickle and Ms Summers, said in written submissions that the judge’s decision was “unfair, poorly reasoned and unsustainable”, adding: “This decision is at odds with the recognized need to promote transparency and media reporting in the family. court”.

He said: “Judges often sit in controversial cases, and despite this fact, the anonymity of the judge is not something that has an internal history, in fact, it is contrary to established norms.”

“Requiring the anonymity of judges, except in truly exceptional cases, is likely to have a damaging effect on public confidence in the judiciary and the wider justice system,” he continued.

He added that maintaining the order represented a “comfortable veil of anonymity” while “real responsibility” was lost.

In his initial judgment, Mr Justice Williams claimed that suggesting family court officials should be held accountable for Sarah’s death was “the equivalent of holding the Titanic responsible for its sinking”.

However, Mr Barnes challenged the “problematic” analogy on Tuesday, while Adam Wolansky QC, representing the BBC and other news organisations, claimed the comparison was “strange and wrong”.

Sara Sharif moved in with her father and stepmother in 2019 who abused her. (Media PA)

The Children’s Guardian, which is representing the youth involved in the case, and Sharif oppose the appeal, which is being heard by three senior judges in London.

Kurosh Larizadeh, for Sharif, said in his written statement that “he is worried that no harm will be done to the judge or judges who presided over this historic trial”.

Mr. Larizadeh added that the media report has led to “significant threats” on social media against the judges, including requests to “put them to bed”, “shoot at dawn” and Hanging from a lamp post.

Alex Vardan QC, for the Children’s Guardian, said in written submissions that the judge’s decision “appears to be based on concern for the welfare of judges”.

“For many professionals working in the family justice system, particularly those in a judicial role, the risks are very real but rarely acknowledged,” she added.

The hearing continues for two days and a judgment is expected at a later date.