Judge Who Returned Sara Sharif to Abusive Father Previously Criticized for Misconduct

[Social Media]

 

Judge Alison Raeside, who placed ten-year-old Sara Sharif back in the custody of her abusive father, has a history of judicial failings, it has now emerged. The press successfully challenged a gag order that had previously prevented her identity from being disclosed. The order, imposed by Mr. Justice Williams, sought to protect her and two other judges from what was described as a potential "social media pile-on."

 

 

Sara was returned to her father, Urfan Sharif, despite multiple allegations of domestic violence, including threats with a knife and habitual physical abuse of his children. The decision to grant him custody was based on a report by an inexperienced social worker, which described Sharif as not posing a threat to his daughter. Judge Raeside endorsed the report, calling it a "very thorough" and "very good piece of work."

 

 

In December, Sharif and his wife, Beinash Batool, were sentenced to life in prison for the brutal murder of Sara, who had endured years of horrific abuse before her death on August 10, 2023. An autopsy revealed she had suffered more than 71 injuries, including fractures, burns, and bite marks. Evidence suggested she had been repeatedly restrained with packing tape and beaten with a metal pole and a cricket bat.

 

Judge Raeside’s controversial decision to grant Sharif shared custody in 2019 came despite her prior involvement in cases revealing a documented history of domestic violence. In hearings between 2013 and 2015, extensive evidence of Sharif’s abusive behavior was presented. Despite this, social services concluded that Sharif and Batool were capable of caring for Sara without "physically chastising" her, leading to Judge Raeside’s ruling in their favor.

The revelation of Judge Raeside’s identity has also brought renewed scrutiny to her judicial record. In 2018, a High Court judge, Mr. Justice Newton, criticized her for conducting a "fundamentally flawed hearing" that lacked transparency. She had engaged in undisclosed discussions with a youth charity about a child’s welfare, leading to allegations of procedural irregularity. Newton noted that her actions raised serious concerns about fairness and transparency, allowing the mother involved in the case to appeal the residency decision.

 

Sara’s case dates back to 2010 when Surrey County Council first raised concerns about her family’s history of neglect. Social services intervened multiple times over the years, placing Sara and her siblings in foster care intermittently. In 2014, one of her siblings was found with an adult bite mark, leading to their removal from the home. However, in 2015, Judge Raeside returned Sara to her mother’s sole care, despite ongoing concerns about her father’s influence.

 

In a now-deleted episode of the *Women Who Work* podcast, Judge Raeside expressed frustration over the lack of feedback in her role. "You don’t get any feedback as a judge," she said. "I’ve never had an appraisal. Imagine that. No one tells you if you are any good." She also stated that her greatest satisfaction came from learning that children from her cases were "doing well and happy" years later.

 

Judge Raeside has had other challenges in her career, including being the target of an online harassment campaign. In 2019, Nyron Warmington was jailed for sending her threatening messages over a nine-month period after she barred him from contacting his daughters. Warmington referred to her home address and children in his posts and was given a five-year restraining order.

 

The two other judges involved in Sara’s hearings, Sally Williams and Peter Nathan, have also faced scrutiny. Judge Nathan, who retired in 2019, placed Sara in foster care on an emergency basis before Judge Raeside later returned her to her father. Judge Williams previously ruled against keeping a child in care based on faulty laboratory evidence, later acknowledging that had the mistake not been discovered, the child would have been wrongly placed for adoption.

 

Sir Geoffrey Vos of the Court of Appeal recently criticized the initial decision to grant judicial anonymity in the Sara Sharif case, stating that even judges handling terrorism and organized crime trials are not given such protections. He ruled that Mr. Justice Williams had "undoubtedly behaved unfairly" by attempting to shield the judges from public scrutiny.

 

The lifting of the gag order now allows for full accountability regarding the decisions that ultimately led to Sara’s tragic fate. As public concern over the handling of her case continues to grow, calls for greater transparency and oversight in family court proceedings are mounting.

 

Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2025-02-03

 

 

[CanadaSam]

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

The decision to grant him custody was based on a report by an inexperienced social worker, which described Sharif as not posing a threat to his daughter.

 

I am more interested in what charges were brought against this person, who is instrumental in deciding young children's lives and future....

[Watawattana]

52 minutes ago, CanadaSam said:

 

I am more interested in what charges were brought against this person, who is instrumental in deciding young children's lives and future....

Who trained and who supervised this inexperienced social worker?  Was evidence of the previous issues made clear to this inexperienced social worker?  If the judge had gone against the Social Services Report could the family have appealed and the judge be criticised?  Many more questions on this too.

 

10 hours ago, Social Media said:

Judge Raeside expressed frustration over the lack of feedback in her role. "You don’t get any feedback as a judge," she said. "I’ve never had an appraisal. Imagine that. No one tells you if you are any good." She also stated that her greatest satisfaction came from learning that children from her cases were "doing well and happy" years later.

Bit of a contradiction here, but surely even judges have performance appraisals and reviews of their work? I recently read a book about the UK's Parole Service, and it appeared that there were reviews if something went wrong in that service.

 

As with many recent child sex abuse cases in the UK, I wonder if the parents' racial background had a bearing too?

 

All in all, a complete shambles, AGAIN, in the UK care services.  But, of course, I'm sure 'lessons will be learnt so they don't happen again'. 🙄🙈

[The Old Bull]

How many bad decisions are judges allowed before they are removed?

[CanadaSam]

Everybody's blaming the judge, but she has to go by the facts presented to her, the the facts presented by social services were grossly wrong, because of an "inexperienced" worker.

 

Well, even "inexperienced" workers can take one look at the file which has details of all previous abuse, and then also can check the child for marks of recent physical abuse.

 

But she presented a case to the judge that is perfectly ok to let the child go back to the custody of this murderous father, I believe perhaps because she was "charmed" by him, and/or just didn't give a dam about this particular kid.

 

RIP young one. 

[Tigger01]

1 hour ago, CanadaSam said:

Everybody's blaming the judge, but she has to go by the facts presented to her, the the facts presented by social services were grossly wrong, because of an "inexperienced" worker.

 

Well, even "inexperienced" workers can take one look at the file which has details of all previous abuse, and then also can check the child for marks of recent physical abuse.

 

But she presented a case to the judge that is perfectly ok to let the child go back to the custody of this murderous father, I believe perhaps because she was "charmed" by him, and/or just didn't give a dam about this particular kid.

 

RIP young one. 

Everyone blames the judge because she was at fault... several times