The Need for Transparency and the Risks to Judicial Safety: Lessons from the Sara Sharif Case

A legal challenge against a restriction that prevented the naming of three judges involved in family court proceedings concerning the tragic case of 10-year-old Sara Sharif has been upheld by the Court of Appeal. The decision, delivered today, underscores the delicate balance between the need for transparency in the justice system and ensuring the safety of judges.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal found that Mr Justice Williams, the High Court judge who issued the anonymity order, did not have jurisdiction to make it. The order, which had prohibited the media from naming three circuit judges involved in earlier family proceedings concerning Sara and her siblings, was ruled procedurally irregular and unfair.

Delivering the lead judgment, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, alongside Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby, emphasized the principle of open justice. Vos stated:

“The principle of open justice is applicable as much in family proceedings as in any other proceedings… Public scrutiny of judges and the justice process is essential to the rule of law.”

Protecting Judges from Harm

The judgment also highlighted the potential dangers faced by judges in the digital age, where public exposure can lead to threats, harassment, and abuse. The three judges, referred to as the “historic judges,” had requested time to prepare for the possibility of their names being published. In response, the Court of Appeal ordered that their names not be disclosed for seven days to allow Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to implement protective measures.

Vos acknowledged the unique position of judges, stating:

“Whilst judges are required to show resilience and fortitude, they are not required to tolerate bullying or abusive behaviour.”

However, he stressed that judges, as public officials, are not exempt from public scrutiny:

“Judges are appointed to fulfil a crucial public office. The independence and integrity of our judges is a cornerstone of our democracy.”

Open Justice and Judicial Accountability

The judgment reaffirmed the principle that open justice extends to family proceedings, barring specific statutory restrictions that protect children’s anonymity. Vos clarified that these restrictions are designed to safeguard vulnerable individuals—not professionals involved in the judicial process.

The Court of Appeal criticized the process leading to the anonymity order, noting that Mr Justice Williams had made the decision without hearing submissions or providing evidence of risk to the judges. Vos suggested that a more appropriate course of action would have been to consult HMCTS in advance about any safety concerns.

“If the judge was concerned about their being named, there were other, more appropriate, ways to protect them… HMCTS, as has happened now, would have considered how the judges could be protected.”

Transparency vs. Safety: Striking the Right Balance

This case highlights the tension between the public’s right to scrutinize the judiciary and the need to protect judges from harm. Open justice is a cornerstone of the rule of law, ensuring that judicial decisions are transparent and accountable. However, the judgment also recognizes the growing threats faced by judges, particularly in high-profile or emotionally charged cases.

By requiring HMCTS to implement protective measures, the Court of Appeal demonstrated that safeguarding judicial safety does not have to come at the expense of transparency. This decision reinforces the message that while judges must be resilient, they are not expected to endure abuse—a reminder that protecting public officials and upholding open justice are not mutually exclusive goals.

In a democracy, public scrutiny of judges is vital, but so is ensuring their ability to perform their duties without fear. This ruling strikes a critical balance, setting an important precedent for future cases involving judicial anonymity and safety.