Three judges who oversaw family court proceedings related to the care of Sara Sharif can be named next week, the court of appeal has ruled. Mr Justice Williams said in December that the media could not name the judges who oversaw family court proceedings relating to the 10-year-old schoolgirl over concerns of a “real risk” of harm to them from a “virtual lynch mob”. He also said he did not believe the media could be trusted to report matters in a fair, accurate and responsible way. Several media organisations that won the right to challenge the order, including the Guardian, told a hearing last week the ban posed a threat to open justice. In a ruling on Friday, three court of appeal judges said Williams had got “carried away” in his ruling and had made “inappropriate and unfair remarks about the press”. The judges said the three unnamed judges could be identified in seven days, allowing time for HM Courts and Tribunals Service to put protective measures in place. Sir Geoffrey Vos, the master of the rolls and head of civil justice, said: “In the circumstances of this case, the judge had no jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges either on 9 December 2024 or thereafter. He was wrong to do so.” Vos, sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby, added: “It is the role of the judge to sit in public and, even if sitting in private, to be identified. “Judges will sit on many types of case in which feelings run high, and where there may be risks to their personal safety. I have in mind cases involving national security, criminal gangs and terrorism. “It is up to the authorities with responsibility for the courts to put appropriate measures in place to meet these risks, depending on the situation presented by any particular case. The first port of call is not, and cannot properly be, the anonymisation of the judge’s name.” The senior judge also said Williams had made an “unwarranted” sarcastic remark about a 2021 Channel 4 Dispatches programme, when he said in the December judgment: “Thank goodness that journalists don’t have to operate as the courts do and hear both sides before delivering their verdict!” Vos said: “Such sarcasm has no proper place in a court judgment.” Sara was murdered by her father, Urfan Sharif, 43, and stepmother, Beinash Batool, 30, in August 2023, less than four years after being placed in their care. At the hearing in January, the court of appeal in London heard that two of the judges involved in the proceedings had retired, with the third still sitting as a judge. Mathew Purchase KC, on their behalf, said in written submissions that each of them had “serious concerns” about the risks of being identified, particularly given the “often inflammatory nature of public and media commentary”. Vos said he had taken what the three judges said “very seriously” but added that “none of that material, which substantially relates to the potential impact on the judges of the publicity generated following the making of the order” was before Williams when he made his ruling. He added: “The mistake the judge made was to think that he could properly trawl through his own experiences to create a case for anonymising the judges. He should not have done so. Courts operate on the basis of the law and the evidence, not on the basis of judicial speculation and anecdote, even if it is legitimate to take judicial notice of some matters. In short, the judge’s judgment demonstrates, to put the matter moderately, that he got carried away. “It is not necessary to decide whether the judge’s inappropriate and unfair remarks about the press and the journalists amounted to actual or apparent bias. He undoubtedly behaved unfairly towards the journalists and Channel 4 – and that is enough to allow the appeals. The judge lost sight of the importance of press scrutiny to the integrity of the justice system.” Vos ruled the case should be sent back for further hearings before a different high court judge. He concluded: “I would allow the appeals primarily on the jurisdiction ground, but also on the grounds of the judge’s failure to seek submissions or evidence before giving his decision, and his unfair treatment of the journalists and Channel 4 … I would deprecate the judge’s use of anecdotal material and his own experiences to create a case for anonymising the judges.”