GUILTY UK - Sara Sharif, 10, found murdered in house, Surrey, Aug 2023 *POIs ARREST* #5

[Luwin]

Woking murder inquiry: Trio sought over death of girl, 10, have left UK

Police are working with international authorities to find the three people over the death in Woking.

www.bbc.co.uk

A murder investigation has been launched after the body of a 10-year-old girl was discovered in Surrey.
She was found after police officers were called to an address in Hammond Road, Woking, at about 02:50 BST on Thursday following a safety concern.
Det Ch Ins Debbie White said it was "a devastating incident".
Police had identified a number of individuals they would like to speak to and were not looking for anyone else, she said.
A spokesperson for the force said no-one else had been injured.

Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3
Thread #4

 

[Sillybilly]

Continue discussion here.

 

[FlamingLily]

One thing that's struck me about the Sara Sharif case is how sadism is ruled out. Batool and sharif desperately needed Sara as a slave (skivvy as Judge said). The washing and cleaning up after the large household fell squarely on Batool as Sara got weaker from the torture. A task impossible to handle with autistic daughters, sons and other males culturally not expected to lift a finger and not external help. The drive to weaken Sara further, losing her cleaning services goes beyond poor anger management and can only be sadism. JMO

 

[FlamingLily]

One thing that's struck me about the Sara Sharif case is how sadism is ruled out. Batool and sharif desperately needed Sara as a slave (skivvy as Judge said). The washing and cleaning up after the large household fell squarely on Batool as Sara got weaker from the torture. A task impossible to handle with autistic daughters, sons and other males culturally not expected to lift a finger and not external help. The drive to weaken Sara further, losing her cleaning services goes beyond poor anger management and can only be sadism. JMO

 

[Moll]

One thing that's struck me about the Sara Sharif case is how sadism is ruled out. Batool and sharif desperately needed Sara as a slave (skivvy as Judge said). The washing and cleaning up after the large household fell squarely on Batool as Sara got weaker from the torture. A task impossible to handle with autistic daughters, sons and other males culturally not expected to lift a finger and not external help. The drive to weaken Sara further, losing her cleaning services goes beyond poor anger management and can only be sadism. JMO

I agree that what they did seems to have no other motive than sadism.
But wasn't it more that the judge felt sadism couldn't safely be ruled in, for the purposes of deciding on a whole-life order or not? In practice Sharif has got imprisonment for the rest of his life, anyway, without any risk of an appeal against a whole-life order - Batool as well, even though her minimum term is not quite as long. There is no doubt of the judge's understanding of the horrific nature of the crime. His sentencing remarks were meticulous and moving.

 

[Moll]

Joshua Rozenberg (well-known legal broadcaster and commentator in the UK) has argued against the failure of Judge David WIlliams to give any reasons why he granted anonymity to the family court judges in Sara's case.

This is being appealed by two freelance journalists backed by Tortoise Media.

Nameless judges

Any move towards secret justice needs open public debate.

rozenberg.substack.com

Joshua Rozenberg reports this morning that the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, has given permission to appeal because the journalists' arguments have a real prospect of success and it is in the public interest that the Court of Appeal considers them.

The hearing on January 14 and 15 will be live streamed to the public.

 

[Moll]

Background to the appeal was given in The Guardian on Saturday.

Moves to appeal after court upholds ban on naming judges who presided over Sara Sharif hearings

‘Unprecedented’ move taken to uphold judicial anonymity despite huge public interest in case

www.theguardian.com

 

[Moll]

Some info on Tortoise Media, who are backing the journalists' appeal (any relation to our own Tortoise?):

Observer appoints Lucy Rock as editor as Tortoise Media sale confirmed

Title’s first female editor in more than a century will work alongside a digital editor, as Observer builds online brand

www.theguardian.com

 

[Smithpanes]

Sara Sharif’s father given custody despite years of reported abuse of mother and siblings

Trial of Urfan Sharif revealed children’s services, Surrey police and primary school were aware of concerns about the family for 16 years

www.theguardian.com

 

[Skigh]

From the Guardian article posted above.



Concerns had been raised about inadequate supervision of Sara’s siblings and poor, dirty conditions in the family home. The children were said to have “suffered from emotional abuse resulting from the volatile relationship between the parents”. On one occasion in October 2012, one child, referred to as Z for legal reasons, suffered physical harm during an altercation.

The same sibling was also found alone in a shop aged three. A year later, Z was found unsupervised in Woking town centre.

In an application for a care order in December 2012, the family were noted as living in temporary homeless accommodation in Slough. It was added that the family had lived previously in a one-bed rented flat where the parents and children shared a bed. The rest of the house was not well-furnished and the children had limited age-appropriate toys, the documents show.

 

[Smithpanes]

From the Guardian article posted above.



Concerns had been raised about inadequate supervision of Sara’s siblings and poor, dirty conditions in the family home. The children were said to have “suffered from emotional abuse resulting from the volatile relationship between the parents”. On one occasion in October 2012, one child, referred to as Z for legal reasons, suffered physical harm during an altercation.

The same sibling was also found alone in a shop aged three. A year later, Z was found unsupervised in Woking town centre.

In an application for a care order in December 2012, the family were noted as living in temporary homeless accommodation in Slough. It was added that the family had lived previously in a one-bed rented flat where the parents and children shared a bed. The rest of the house was not well-furnished and the children had limited age-appropriate toys, the documents show.

It’s clear from this Sara was let down by Ogla as well as other children she had.

 

[Smithpanes]

From article above!

The local authority brought care proceedings for the children seven days before Sara was born. A case summary noted: “There have also been allegations that the children have been subject to physical abuse by both parents. The children have been exposed to domestic violence.”

But on 17 January 2013, six days after Sara’s birth, the first hearing for care proceedings for the children concluded: “Whilst the guardian is satisfied that there may be reasonable grounds to believe that the children are likely to suffer significant harm … The advantages of the children remaining at home should [be] weighed against the potential harm to the children of removal, particularly to Sara as a newborn child, before we have a full assessment and understanding of these children and their parents ability to meet their individual needs.”

Months later, in May 2013, Sara’s sibling Z was burned by an iron. When social workers visited their home, they found no lightbulbs or bedding in the children’s bedrooms.

 

[OceanElix]

Sara Sharif’s father given custody despite years of reported abuse of mother and siblings

Trial of Urfan Sharif revealed children’s services, Surrey police and primary school were aware of concerns about the family for 16 years

www.theguardian.com

This is absolutely appalling.
I cannot comprehend SS decision making.
One thing is very clear to me, no one in that authority cared enough to do anything, caseload pressures or not, the easy option was chosen at every instance and Sara paid the ultimate cost of this.
This absolutely breaks my heart.
Jmo ime

 

[Moll]

The granting of permission to appeal the anonymity order given to the family court judges has also now been reported in the Law Gazette

Court of Appeal to hear challenge to judges’ anonymity in Sara Sharif case

Journalists brought a challenge to anonymity order which prevents family judges being identified.

www.lawgazette.co.uk

It adds:
'In a decision on the permission to appeal, master of the rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos revealed Surrey County Council - which has been heavily criticised for the apparent failures of social services to identify the risks Sara faced from her parents - has taken no position on the application.

Sharif and his wife Beinash Batool, Sara’s father and stepmother, broadly oppose the application, Vos stated.'

Does their opinion count, I wonder?!

 

[Dotta]

This is absolutely appalling.
I cannot comprehend SS decision making.
One thing is very clear to me, no one in that authority cared enough to do anything, caseload pressures or not, the easy option was chosen at every instance and Sara paid the ultimate cost of this.
This absolutely breaks my heart.
Jmo ime

My guess is SS are wary to get involved in immigrants' families due to "sensitive cultural issues".
U was abusive even towards SS women workers (as was reported).
Those who asked about the sudden hijab wearing by Sara were silenced by U claiming that his daughter "was embracing her religion".
And nobody dared to broach this subject further.

Re homeschooling

What exactly were these murderers' skills to supposedly homeschool Sara?
Their own education?
Knowledge of Literature, History, Mathematics, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Foreign Languages, ICT and other subjects?

Are parents who wish to homeschool their children checked in this regard?

What are these kids really learning?

Are they taking any State Exams?

SMH in sheer bewilderment

JMO

 

[Moll]

This news is also reported in the local Government Lawyer newsletter:

Court of Appeal to hear challenge to order providing anonymity for judges who heard historic family proceedings concerning Sara Sharif

www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Extract:
'Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, said the court had expedited dealing with their application “in the light of the exceptional public interest in the point raised and the legitimate media interest in the effect of the order that Mr Justice Williams (the judge) made”.

The Master of the Rolls said the journalists’ grounds of appeal argue that Mr Justice Williams’ decision in making the relevant part of the order was:

1. Unjust because of a serious procedural irregularity in that the judge failed to give reasons (until the delivery to the parties on 19 December 2024 of a 66-page draft judgment, which it is expected will be handed down in due course);
2. Wrong in that the demands of open justice meant that anonymity for a judge could not be justified within the framework of balancing article 8 and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. Wrong in that the judge was not capable of justifying the order, in the absence of any specific application made to him or any evidential foundation placed before him.
4. Wrong in that the order was inimical to the proper administration of justice.'

The Master of the Rolls said the other media parties supported the journalists’ application, Surrey County Council took no position, and counsel for the father and the stepmother broadly opposed the application. The Guardian sought more time.'

 

[Dotta]

This news is also reported in the local Government Lawyer newsletter:

Court of Appeal to hear challenge to order providing anonymity for judges who heard historic family proceedings concerning Sara Sharif

www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Extract:
'Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, said the court had expedited dealing with their application “in the light of the exceptional public interest in the point raised and the legitimate media interest in the effect of the order that Mr Justice Williams (the judge) made”.

The Master of the Rolls said the journalists’ grounds of appeal argue that Mr Justice Williams’ decision in making the relevant part of the order was:

1. Unjust because of a serious procedural irregularity in that the judge failed to give reasons (until the delivery to the parties on 19 December 2024 of a 66-page draft judgment, which it is expected will be handed down in due course);
2. Wrong in that the demands of open justice meant that anonymity for a judge could not be justified within the framework of balancing article 8 and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. Wrong in that the judge was not capable of justifying the order, in the absence of any specific application made to him or any evidential foundation placed before him.
4. Wrong in that the order was inimical to the proper administration of justice.'

The Master of the Rolls said the other media parties supported the journalists’ application, Surrey County Council took no position, and counsel for the father and the stepmother broadly opposed the application. The Guardian sought more time.'

I read that bio mother ... <modsnip: What you "read" is not a source>
She was even intimidated by her ex husband.
He threatened to murder her.

Quote from Sara's Polish uncle:
"At some point he threatened her saying if she keeps getting on his nerves about the children some day she will be found dead somewhere.'

Is it Justice?

Polish uncle of Sara Sharif urges police to 'catch her scumbag killer'

It has emerged that the family of murdered schoolgirl Sara Sharif in Woking were known to police. Reports say contact had gone back 'some time'.

www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[Moll]

From article above!

The local authority brought care proceedings for the children seven days before Sara was born. A case summary noted: “There have also been allegations that the children have been subject to physical abuse by both parents. The children have been exposed to domestic violence.”

But on 17 January 2013, six days after Sara’s birth, the first hearing for care proceedings for the children concluded: “Whilst the guardian is satisfied that there may be reasonable grounds to believe that the children are likely to suffer significant harm … The advantages of the children remaining at home should [be] weighed against the potential harm to the children of removal, particularly to Sara as a newborn child, before we have a full assessment and understanding of these children and their parents ability to meet their individual needs.”

Months later, in May 2013, Sara’s sibling Z was burned by an iron. When social workers visited their home, they found no lightbulbs or bedding in the children’s bedrooms.

I forget when we first saw that information but I could hardly believe the second para you have quoted, and still can't. How on earth could anyone conclude that there might be reasonable grounds to conclude the children were likely to suffer significant harm, but that should be weighed against the possible harm of removing them from home?

 

[Moll]

I read that bio mother <modsnip>
She was even intimidated by her ex husband.
He threatened to murder her.

Is it Justice?

No, it isn't.
The judge referred to Olga entirely as a victim in this case, and I hope that now the full extent of his lies is known, the injustice will be acknowledged. But I don't know eactly how this will happen or how long the enquiry will take.

 

[Moll]

Another report about the appeal against the anonymity order has appeared in the Ealing Times

Appeal over naming of Sara Sharif family court judges to be heard in January

Judges involved in previous family court proceedings involving the 10-year-old cannot be named due to a court order.

www.ealingtimes.co.uk

The paper also has a recap of the family courts' earlier dealings with the family. Extract:

'The situation did not improve, with a court hearing in 2015 told that the authority was “extremely concerned” that Sara and U were “likely to suffer significant emotional and physical harm in their parents’ care”, as both alleged the other was violent.

Despite concerns, Sara was moved to her mother’s sole care under supervision in November 2015, while still having contact with her father, which remained the case until 2019.

She then moved to live with Urfan Sharif and his new partner, Batool, with reports that this followed Sara making accusations of physical abuse by her mother, which were also never proved.

A judge at Guildford Family Court approved the change, with Sara moving to the family home in Woking, Surrey.

It was there that she was subjected to years of abuse, which culminated in her murder in August last year.'