Gransnet forums

News & politics

Court of Appeal rules the 3 Sara Sharif judges can be identified next week.

(108 Posts)
FriedGreenTomatoes2 Fri 24-Jan-25 11:27:03

Three judges who oversaw family court proceedings related to the care of Sara Sharif can be named next week, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

In December, Mr Justice Williams said that the media could not identify three judges who oversaw historical court cases related to Sara, as well as others including social workers and guardians, because of a “real risk” of harm to them from a “virtual lynch mob”.

But in a ruling on Friday, three Court of Appeal judges said the three unnamed judges could be identified in seven days.

Sir Geoffrey Vos said: “In the circumstances of this case, the judge had no jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges either on Dec 9 2024 or thereafter. He was wrong to do so.”

He added: “It is the role of the judge to sit in public and, even if sitting in private, to be identified... Judges will sit on many types of case in which feelings run high, and where there may be risks to their personal safety.

“I have in mind cases involving national security, criminal gangs and terrorism. It is up to the authorities with responsibility for the courts to put appropriate measures in place to meet these risks, depending on the situation presented by any particular case.

“The first port of call is not, and cannot properly be, the anonymisation of the judge’s name.”

‘Got carried away’
Sir Geoffrey said that the High Court judge “got carried away” in his ruling, finding that Mr Justice Williams had “behaved unfairly” towards two journalists.

The senior judge also said Mr Justice Williams had made an “unwarranted” sarcastic remark about a 2021 Channel 4 Dispatches programme.

Sir Geoffrey added: “Such sarcasm has no proper place in a court judgment.”

Iam64 Sat 01-Feb-25 08:33:45

All agencies including Cafcass and other social work departments struggle to recruit and retain staff. 12 years ago, when I last had formal contact with social work students, I was told their tutors advised against going into children and families work. They said it’s much harder than other sw ‘and you can find the Daily Mail on your doorstep if anything goes wrong

On what we have read in the press, it’s hard to understand how Sara was placed with her father. We haven’t seen all the evidence before the Judge. From my reading, it became a public law case, which means a Children’s Guardian not a Family Court Advisor. That means a more thorough assessment and overview rather than a Section 7 report. Whatever , something went horribly wrong here.

My experience is that is a Court returns a child to her parents after care proceedings, agencies are focussed on supporting the placement.

keepingquiet Sat 01-Feb-25 09:23:24

Thanks for pointing out the difference here Iam64.

Of course every case is different, but my experience of the FC system has been eye-opening to say the least. However, I am not allowed to speak about it...

Iam64 Sat 01-Feb-25 12:01:22

I’m sorry you had a difficult experience keeping quiet. It’s always tough x

keepingquiet Sat 01-Feb-25 12:45:28

Difficult is not the word. I withdrew in the end because it became a farcical circus. As a professional person I was appalled at the chaos and inefficiency. In my job I would have been sacked several times over but these people are not accountable and some (not all) completely lacking in common sense. The whole fiasco is not fit for purpose and needs a radical overhaul.
No one's listening though- they don't care about the kids, that much was obvious to me.
Now I do what I can in my own way and will never trust any of the statutary services again.

Wyllow3 Sat 01-Feb-25 12:54:46

Its disgraceful the system has been allowed to be run down for so long so people have no time anymore to make links, keep contacts, do proper follow ups, write proper reports, ask more questions, get proper training and supervision. I'm sure there may be some bad apples as with everywhere but I see failings are often systemic.

keepingquiet Sat 01-Feb-25 15:16:35

It's mostly due to austerity and the lack of funding, cuts to services etc.

I spoke to a mediator who said she left the legal profession because the family services had been cut to the bone and she could no longer do the job she had been doing for years with obvious focus on the family and child welfare.

Even the mediation system has broken down and is no more than a tick box.

Of course no one knows this until there is a severe family breakdown and then they realise it is every man/woman for themselves and forget the kids.

Iam64 Sat 01-Feb-25 20:40:33

keeping quiet, after local authority teams of guardians ad lit em were moved into Cafcass case loads trebled. Prior to Cafcass guardians had to have a minimum 5 years in safeguarding roles. Within a few years, newly qualified sw were being appointed to Cafcass