Social workers in Sara Sharif case denied anonymity by coroner

Three social workers who applied to give evidence anonymously at the inquest into the death of Sara Sharif have been told they will be named.

The social workers, who cited mental health grounds as the reasion, applied at a pre-inquest review at Surrey Coroner’s Court on 10 September.

But senior coroner Richard Travers rejected all three applications, saying: "I am not satisfied, on the basis of the evidence provided, that granting anonymity is justified by reference to common law principles of fairness or as a result of balancing the Article 8 rights (respect for private and family life) of the employees against the Article 10 rights (freedom of expression) of the media and the important principle of open justice.”

The judgement means the press will be free to name the three practitioners. Media outlets including the BBC, Times Media and Guardian News and had opposed their application to remain anonymous.

Alethea Redfern, representing the council, told the coroner that anonymity would protect the employees from "harm to their health and private and family lives". She said there was a "risk that the employees could no longer work if their identities were revealed".

Sara Sharif was found dead at the family home in Woking in August 2023. Her father, Urfan Sharif, and stepmother, Beinash Batool, were jailed for life for the murder of the ten-year-old in December 2024. Her uncle, Faisal Malik, was jailed for 16 years for causing or allowing her death.

Concerns were raised about Sara's care within a week of her birth in 2013. Her parents were known to social services from as early as 2010.

The Family Court initially granted anonymity to judges, social workers and guardians involved in the case, citing the risk of a “virtual lynch mob.”

But the judges’ anonymity was lifted by the Court of Appeal in January 2025 – leaving the question of anonymity of the social workers open.

At the first pre-inquest review in July 2025 the coroner said names would not be redacted unless applications were received. Now the applications have failed, it is not known whether the council will challenge the ruling.

BASW said it had “serious reservations” about the potential harm posed to the social workers and their families.

A spokesperson said: “Social workers are doing their upmost to safeguard children, often under challenging, overstretched and highly pressured circumstances. 

“If mistakes are made, it is correct that accountability processes begin and action is taken where appropriate. 

“But what is not anyone’s best interests, especially not for a sector that is facing a recruitment and retention crisis, is to single out individuals and risk inciting a trial by public opinion. 

“As countless past examples show, naming often leads to public shaming, abuse and threats – all of which is unacceptable.”

The association urged Surrey Council to challenge the ruling and for the Court of Appeal to strongly reconsider. 

“Granting anonymity would ensure that the focus of the inquest remains firmly on understanding what went wrong in this case and to learn lessons to improve practice,” the spokesperson added.