Media seeks to challenge a court ruling that protects judges’ identities in the Sara Sharif hearings, raising concerns over transparency.
Surrey: So, here’s the scoop. A high court judge recently decided that the media can’t name the judges involved in the Sara Sharif case. This decision has stirred up quite a bit of chatter.
On Friday night, the judge, Mr. Justice Williams, said no to an appeal against his ruling. This kind of reporting restriction is pretty rare, especially in family court cases.
Two reporters, who really know their stuff when it comes to family justice, had asked for court documents about Sara’s situation back in September. Now, with support from Tortoise Media, they’re gearing up to challenge this decision in a higher court.
Interestingly, it turns out one judge handled all three family court cases related to Sara. These included care proceedings from Surrey County Council and a request from her father, Urfan Sharif, to have Sara and her sibling live with him. There was even a different judge who made an emergency protection order once.
In a democracy, it’s pretty standard for judges to be named in cases they oversee. People want to know who’s making decisions that affect lives.
Even in sensitive cases, like those involving terrorism or organized crime, judges aren’t usually kept anonymous. If a judge wants to stay anonymous, they have to apply for it, but that didn’t happen here.
Back in 2023, there was a case involving a baby named Finley Boden. The judge ruled that the public’s right to know outweighed any arguments against naming judges, even magistrates. It seems like this is a hot topic that won’t cool down anytime soon.