Three judges who oversaw Family Court hearings involving Sara Sharif in the years before she was murdered can be named for the first time following a legal appeal.
Sara Sharif’s father, Urfan Sharif, 43, and stepmother, Beinash Batool, 30, have been sentenced to life imprisonment for her murder in Woking, Surrey, in 2023. Following their convictions, media outlets gained access to past Family Court hearings regarding Sara’s care. However, a High Court ruling initially barred the media from naming the three judges involved in the case: Judge Alison Raeside, Judge Peter Nathan, and Judge Sally Williams. Mr. Justice Williams issued the order, citing a “real risk” of harm to the judges from a “virtual lynch mob.”
Several media organisations, including the BBC, challenged this ruling, arguing that judicial decisions must be open to public scrutiny. The appeal was successful, with Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, ruling that anonymising the judges was “misguided.” The decision allowed the media to reveal that Judge Raeside had overseen most of the hearings related to Sara’s case, including the earliest and the final ones.
Judge Alison Raeside sat on most of the Family Court hearings involving Sara Sharif
The family court had been involved with Sara’s family even before she was born. The first mention of her name occurred on 17 January 2013, when she was just six days old. Surrey County Council sought an interim care order to place Sara and two siblings in foster care due to concerns about inadequate supervision and unexplained injuries. Judge Raeside, who was presiding over the case, was informed about domestic abuse allegations against Urfan Sharif. Despite these concerns, she opted for an interim supervision order, allowing the children to remain with their parents under council supervision.
By September 2013, the final hearing confirmed this arrangement, as social workers had shifted their recommendation from a care order to a supervision order. However, by November 2014, the case returned to court after one of Sara’s siblings accused their mother, Olga Sharif, of biting them. Judge Peter Nathan initially heard the case, but it returned to Judge Raeside, who ruled that Sara and one sibling could live with Urfan Sharif, while the sibling who was bitten was placed in foster care.
Judge Peter Nathan and Judge Sally Williams, who were involved in Family Court proceedings
In 2015, new concerns emerged when a sibling accused Urfan Sharif of physical abuse. During a three-day hearing, Olga Sharif testified that she had suffered severe domestic abuse, including instances where Urfan Sharif allegedly tried to set her on fire, held a knife to her throat, and strangled her with a belt. She ultimately moved into a women’s refuge with the children. Judge Sally Williams later placed Sara and a sibling in temporary foster care after reports that Urfan Sharif was secretly seeing them despite the court’s restrictions.
By September 2015, Judge Raeside issued an interim care order, keeping Sara and her sibling in foster care. Two months later, she ruled that they could live with Olga Sharif, with Urfan Sharif having supervised visits. For several years, the courts were not involved with the family. However, in 2019, Urfan Sharif, now married to Beinash Batool, sought court approval for Sara and her sibling to live with them, with supervised contact with Olga Sharif.
Sara and her sibling reportedly accused Olga of abuse, including slapping, hair-pulling, and attempts to burn them. Urfan Sharif first raised these allegations. A social worker supported the children moving in with their father and stepmother. On 9 July 2019, after over six years of involvement, Judge Raeside ruled that Sara and her sibling would live with their father and stepmother. Five years later, Sara was murdered by the very people entrusted with her care.
Following the convictions of Urfan Sharif and Beinash Batool, Mr. Justice Williams defended the court system, stating that all professionals, including judges, acted according to legal and social work standards at the time. He emphasized that with the information available then, the decisions made in 2013, 2015, and 2019 were reasonable.
Sara had previously been in mum Olga’s care Credit: Instagram
Media lawyer Adam Wolanski KC argued that judges must accept public scrutiny as “the face of justice itself.” The case has raised concerns over threats against judges, particularly through social media. Chief Justice Baroness Carr announced the creation of a “security taskforce” to address increasing threats to judicial figures. The naming of the judges coincided with new rules allowing greater reporting from family courts in England and Wales.
