Journalists win appeal over naming of judges who decided historic care proceedings relating to Sara Sharif

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal brought by two journalists against a judge’s decision to order the anonymisation of the names of the circuit judges that had decided historic care proceedings relating to Sara Sharif, who was murdered by her father and step-mother in 2023.

In Louise Tickle & Anor v The BBC & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 42, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, concluded that the judge had “no jurisdiction” to anonymise the historic judges, and that there was “no evidence” the judges had been physically threatened, and “none supporting the proposition that their article 8 rights were in jeopardy”.

Sir Geoffrey noted that on 18 August 2023, the local authority made a wardship application in respect of five of Sara’s siblings, who had been wrongfully removed to Pakistan.

Thereafter, on 8 September 2023, the journalists and other media parties requested disclosure of documents relating to the historic care proceedings.

The judge, Mr Justice Williams, made a number of Reporting Restrictions Orders in the run up to and during the criminal trial of the father and the step-mother, which culminated in convictions on 11 December 2024 and sentencing on 17 December 2024.

The order under appeal was pronounced orally on 9 December 2024, just before the criminal trial concluded.

It allowed the press to see and publish numerous documents from the historic proceedings. However, It included an order preventing the media reporting the names of the judges who had been involved in the historic proceedings which related to Sara Sharif and to two of her siblings.

Sir Geoffrey Vos MR observed: “When [the judge] pronounced the Order in court, no party had asked for the names of the three circuit judges who had been involved in the historic proceedings (the historic judges) to be anonymised. The judge had heard no submissions on the point. He had not mentioned to the parties that he had in mind to make the order he did.”

The journalists immediately sought permission to appeal the anonymisation of the historic judges.

Earlier this month (9 January) counsel for the historic judges filed a note indicating, amongst other things, that none of them had sought anonymity, each of them now had serious concerns about the risks which would arise if they were now identified, and those concerns related not only to their own personal wellbeing but also to their family members and others close to them.

Two of the historic judges considered that it would be right for their identities to remain protected,while the third was a sitting judge who was not, therefore, able to adduce evidence and did not feel it appropriate to express a position on whether their identity should remain protected.

The historic judges also considered that a risk assessment should be undertaken before any decision was made and that, if the anonymity part of the Order were to be varied, further assessments should be made of what (if any) protective measures should be taken before that decision was implemented.

They also noted that the Head of Security at HMCTS's Chief Financial Officer's Directorate had said that the historic judges: "do not have secure digital footprints and the ease at which the residential address details of the judges can be accessed by anybody utilising the internet, creates very significant security/safety vulnerabilities. If there is a campaign, including potential 'hate' messages targeting [the historic judges], their personal safety and the personal safety of their family could be very severely affected".

The Master of the Rolls said the appeal raised three main issues:

1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to prohibit the publication of the names of judges, and if so how and in what circumstances.
2. Whether the part of the Order anonymising the historic judges was irregular for lack of submissions, evidence or reasons.
3. Whether the judge’s comments in his judgment demonstrated inappropriate bias against or unfairness towards the media.

On the first issue (jurisdiction to prohibit the publication of the names of judges), the media parties submitted that the court had no jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges.

They argued the only basis for such an order would be section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, which makes it “unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with” an ECHR right, and section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which gives the court power to grant an injunction “in all cases in which it appears … just and convenient to do so”.

They submitted that so far as the historic judges were concerned, the threshold was not reached to engage any of article 2 (right to life), article 3 (freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), or article 8 (respect for family and private life). They were not vulnerable parties.

The local authority submitted that the article 8 threshold could be reached if there were a risk that “the physical or psychological integrity of the judges or their families might be impugned”.

On the second issue (irregularity for lack of submissions, evidence or reasons), the Master of the Rolls noted that most of the parties accepted that the judge ought to have asked for evidence and argument before pronouncing his Order anonymising the historic judges, and that he ought to have given some reasons for that part of his Order at the time of its making.

The father pointed, however, to the parties’ agreement to an abbreviated timetable for the hearing as a justification for not seeking submissions or giving reasons immediately.

On the third issue (inappropriate bias against or unfairness towards the media), only the journalists and the other media parties made substantive submissions.

Sir Geoffrey Vos MR said: “The argument relies on certain parts of the judgment that are said to demonstrate the judge’s personal animus against the journalists personally and the media generally.”

Parties to the hearing included a number of media organisations, including the BBC and PA Media, Surrey County Council (the local authority), Sara Sharif's father (the father), and Olga Sharif, her mother.

Considering the first issue, Sir Geoffrey Vos MR noted: “The critical jurisdictional question is the one that, it seems to me, the judge ought to have asked himself when it came into his head to order anonymity for the historic judges at the end of the hearing on 9 December 2024. At that point, no party had suggested that such anonymity was necessary. Moreover, no evidence of any kind had been filed supporting the making of such an order.”

He added: “Neither the Local Authority nor the Guardian had submitted to the judge at any stage that the protection of the children required that the historic judges be granted anonymity. That remains the position. Accordingly, the parens patriae inherent jurisdiction of the court to protect the children was not engaged.

“[…] It seems to me, therefore, that the only realistic jurisdictional foundation for the judge’s decision was section 6 of the HRA 1998, perhaps taken alongside section 37. Section 6 provides, as I have said, that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with an ECHR right.”

However, he found that the judge had “no evidential basis” on which to think that the threshold for the application of articles 2, 3 or 8 had been reached.

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

“[…] The first port of call is not, and cannot properly be, the anonymisation of the judge’s name. That must be particularly so, where those names are already notionally in the public domain.”

He concluded that the judge had no jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges either on 9 December 2024 or thereafter.

Turning to the second issue raised by the appeal, Sir Geoffrey observed: “I have already decided that, in the absence of specific evidence about risks or threats to the ECHR rights of the historic judges, the judge ought not to have taken any steps to anonymise them under section 6. The primary question under this heading is, therefore, now academic, since no specific evidence has, even now, become available.”

He added: “For the avoidance of doubt, though, I do think the appeals should be allowed on this ground too on the basis that the judge ought, in the circumstances of this case, to have asked for submissions and evidence prior to making his decision.”

Finally, turning to the third issue (was there inappropriate bias against or unfairness towards the media), the Master of the Rolls noted: “It was, I think, unfair of the judge to say, with such vehemence, that the journalists had been guilty of inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible reporting. The decision to adjourn the journalists’ application for permission to appeal just before the end of term was akin to dismissing the application. The distinction was, in the circumstances, a technical one.

“[…] The mistake the judge made was to think that he could properly trawl through his own experiences to create a case for anonymising the judges. He should not have done so. Courts operate on the basis of the law and the evidence, not on the basis of judicial speculation and anecdote, even if it is legitimate to take judicial notice of some matters. In short, the judge’s judgment demonstrates, to put the matter moderately, that he got carried away.”

He continued: “It is not necessary to decide whether the judge’s inappropriate and unfair remarks about the press and the journalists amounted to actual or apparent bias. He undoubtedly behaved unfairly towards the journalists and Channel 4 – and that is enough to allow the appeals. The judge lost sight of the importance of press scrutiny to the integrity of the justice system.”

He ordered the case to be remitted for further hearings to a different Family Division judge.

Allowing the appeal, Sir Geoffrey Vos MR concluded: “For the reasons I have given, I would allow the appeals primarily on the jurisdiction ground, but also on the grounds of the judge’s failure to seek submissions or evidence before giving his decision, and his unfair treatment of the journalists and Channel 4.”

Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby agreed.

Following the ruling, the historic judges were allowed 7 days before their names were published to allow HMCTS to put measures in place to protect them from any potential harm once their names were released.

Lottie Winson