header-logo header-logo

05 February 2025
Issue: 8103 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Child law
printer mail-detail

Judges' safety versus open justice?

Three family judges who made historic decisions concerning Sara Sharif have been named.

In January the Court of Appeal overturned an anonymity order made by Mr Justice Williams, in Tickle & anor v The BBC & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 42. The judges concerned, Judge Alison Raeside and retired circuit judges Peter Nathan and Sally Williams, had not sought anonymity.

Ten-year-old Sara was murdered by her father and stepmother in August 2023.

Rachel Frost-Smith, family legal director at law firm Birketts, said: ‘In addition to putting a spotlight on the profoundly tragic circumstances of Sara’s short life, the case highlights the incredibly difficult work that the family court and associated professionals do in relation to children and the high stakes of the decisions that judges make.

‘This work is done against a backdrop of well publicised cuts to public funding, which brings with it heavy caseloads for professionals and judges. Family judges have been subjected to a series of attacks from disgruntled litigants (many of whom do not have access to legal advice). Other professionals have been similarly targeted, for example the staff at Great Ormond Street Hospital during the Charlie Gard case [a 2017 case concerning the life of a child with brain damage], some of whom received death threats.

‘While those making decisions should be held accountable, and procedures and protocol put in place for good reason followed, it is clearly wholly unacceptable for those judges and professionals to be attacked in any way.’

Judge Raeside has previously been the victim of stalking and harassment by a father involved in contact proceedings—the man was imprisoned and given a five-year restraining order at Bristol Crown Court in 2019. Last year, a man was imprisoned for attacking Judge Patrick Perusko, a family court judge, in Milton Keynes County Court.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll