header-logo header-logo

Judges have duty to sit in public, says Vos MR

29 January 2025
Issue: 8102 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Child law , Criminal , Media
printer mail-detail
Three judges in historic care and private family law proceedings involving Sara Sharif could be named next week, after the Court of Appeal unanimously held the High Court did not have jurisdiction to prohibit the publication of their identities.

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, gave the judges a preparation period of seven days ‘to allow HMCTS to put measures in place to protect them from any potential harm once their names are released’.

Ten-year-old Sara Sharif was murdered by her father and stepmother in August 2023, in a shocking case that has provoked widespread public outrage. A group of journalists and broadcasters brought a claim seeking to overturn a reporting restriction imposed by Mr Justice Williams regarding the names of the three judges (and other social work professionals).

Counsel for the historic judges filed a note indicating none of them had sought anonymity but each of them had serious concerns about the risks to themselves and their families if they were now identified. Moreover, HMCTS security had warned the judges’ addresses could be accessed easily and their personal safety ‘severely affected’.

Giving the lead judgment in Tickle & anor v The BBC & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 42 last week, however, Sir Geoffrey allowed the appeal ‘primarily’ on the ground of jurisdiction but also on the grounds of procedural irregularity and unfairness.

He said: ‘It is the duty of judges to sit in public… In accepting office, all judges will or should be aware that that is the expectation, because public scrutiny of judges and the justice process is essential to the rule of law.’

Two of the judges have since retired. One made a protective order removing Sara and her siblings into care on an emergency basis, while the other made an interim care order ensuring the children did not return to either parent while risk assessments were carried out. The third judge approved a joint application by the mother and father to have the child arrangements order varied by consent in the father’s favour in 2019 after first ordering a full report by Surrey Social Services.

Issue: 8102 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Child law , Criminal , Media
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll