By Michael Thompson
Founder, Falsely Accused Network
The recent Court of Appeal ruling permitting the naming of three judges who presided over Sara Sharif's family court proceedings marks a significant victory for judicial transparency in Britain. As someone who has long advocated for greater openness in our family courts, I find Sir Geoffrey Vos's judgment particularly pertinent.
The original decision by Mr Justice Williams to anonymise these judges' identities reflected a concerning trend in our judicial system - the instinct to shield court officials from public scrutiny under the guise of protection from what he termed a "virtual lynch mob." This characterisation of public interest in high-profile cases is not only dismissive but dangerous to the principles of open justice.
Sir Geoffrey Vos's ruling masterfully dismantles this approach. His observation that "judges will sit on many types of case in which feelings run high" cuts to the heart of the matter. The judiciary cannot simply retreat behind anonymity when cases become challenging or controversial. This would set a dangerous precedent that undermines the very foundation of our legal system.
What's particularly striking about this case is Mr Justice Williams's assertion that holding individuals involved in these proceedings responsible was "equivalent to holding the lookout on the Titanic responsible for its sinking." This analogy, which Sir Geoffrey rightly criticised, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of public accountability in our justice system.
The tragic timeline of Sara's case, from Surrey County Council's initial involvement in 2010 to the devastating decision in 2019 that allowed her to live with her father, raises serious questions about our family court system. These decisions, made behind closed doors, ultimately contributed to a chain of events that ended in unimaginable tragedy.
The successful challenge by journalists Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers represents a crucial step forward in family court transparency. Their statement that "any other decision would have set a dangerous precedent" resonates deeply with our organisation's mission at the Falsely Accused Network.
As we move forward, this ruling must serve as a catalyst for greater openness in family court proceedings. The public has a right to understand how these life-altering decisions are made, and by whom. Transparency doesn't threaten justice - it strengthens it.
This case reminds us that while protecting the vulnerable is paramount, this protection cannot come at the expense of accountability. The system that failed Sara Sharif must be examined in the full light of day, not hidden behind veils of anonymity.
This ruling sends a clear message: judicial accountability and public safety are not mutually exclusive. The authorities must find ways to protect judges that don't compromise the fundamental principle of open justice. Only through transparency can we hope to prevent future tragedies and maintain public confidence in our judicial system.
Comments