Judge in Sara Sharif care proceedings was stalked by irate dad months before fateful decision

Yahoo

31-01-2025

The judge who ruled that murdered schoolgirl Sara Sharif should live with her father was herself the victim of a stalking campaign from an irate dad in the months before she made that fateful decision, it can now be revealed.
Judge Alison Raeside oversaw a series of family court hearings about Sara's care in the years before the ten-year-old was murdered by her father Urfan Sharif and stepmother Beinash Batool.
The judge's identity was initially cloaked in secrecy by a more senior judge, but can be reported on Friday for the first time.
Judge Raeside was called to the Bar in 1982 and first appointed as a District Judge in 2000.
In 2019, she became the designated family court judge sitting in Surrey.
The previous year, Judge Raeside had fallen victim to a stalking campaign by a father who had appeared before her in family proceedings.
The Standard reported how Nyron Warmington, from Croydon, pursued Judge Raeside for nine months, branding her a 'vile monster' in a series of threatening messages.
He targeted the Judge after she barred him from contacting his daughters, calling her 'odious' and posting messages referring to her home address and her own children.
Using the pseudonym 'Equality for Fathers', Warmington posted on Instagram and Facebook about 'monsters working in the UK courts', and referred to guns and violence as he threatened the judge between May 2018 and January 2019.
Bristol crown court heard how Judge Raeside reported Warmington to police after she was alerted to his social media posts.
Warmington was jailed for a year in August 2019, and a few months later the judge was called upon to adjudicate an application by Sharif to be granted custody of his daughter.
Judge Raeside made the decision that Sara could live with her father, after receiving a report from a social worker backing the move. It is now known that the little girl was subjected to horrendous violent abuse at the hands of her father and stepmother before she was ultimately murdered.
Judge Raeside, 66, has four adult children with her husband, Mark Raeside KC, a fellow circuit judge.
In November 2023 she spoke on an episode of the 'Women Who Work' podcast, revealing her thoughts on parenting and the challenges of being a judge.
In the chat, she supported the idea of judges being able to work from home, and also commented that it is 'very odd' that judges are never given feedback on their work.
'I've never had an appraisal', she said. 'Imagine that. You don't get any feedback. No-one tells you if you are any good.'
Judge Raeside was appointed as Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr's nominated representative on the HM Courts and Tribunal Board last year.
Her work in one case was put under scrutiny in March 2019 when a High Court judge criticised the way she had decided on the care of a 14-year-old boy.
Mr Justice Newton concluded Judge Raeside's hearing of the case had been 'fundamentally flawed' because she had conducted private conversations with a youth charity – without the knowledge of either parent.
The boy's mother complained that the conduct of the judge was unfair, lacked transparency, and undermined the decision-making process.
Mr Justice Newton concluded: 'These are serious charges against an experienced judge, endeavouring to do her very best for this boy, caused I have no doubt by the mother's extreme behaviour.
'It is, I regret to say, a matter which has caused me very considerable anxiety.'
In another reported case from 2020, Judge Raeside approved a plan for a little girl who acts 'very aggressively' towards a 'doll daddy' to be withdrawn from her mother's care.
Judge Raeside concluded the five-year-old girl had been alienated from her father by her mother, and referenced a psychologist report that the girl had been seen playing 'violent games' directed at a 'daddy' doll.
The work of the family courts has traditionally been shrouded in secrecy, with tough reporting restrictions imposed on most cases.
In the last year, the family courts have been opened up to more scrutiny, with journalists now allowed to report many of the cases, as long as parties remain anonymous to protect the welfare of the children.
Sharif and Batool are both serving life sentences for Sara's murder, after being convicted at an Old Bailey trial.
After criminal proceedings ended, journalists sought to report the family proceedings that had pre-dated the murder.
Sara's name was mentioned in those court hearings within days of her birth in 2013. Allegations were made against Sharif by his ex-wife that he was violent and controlling, while there were concerns aired in the proceedings that children had been injured.
Judge Raeside, who was involved in care proceedings between 2013 to 2015, heard the domestic abuse allegations.
She has now been named alongside Judge Peter Nathan and Judge Sally Williams, who also conducted family court hearings in Sara's case.
Mr Justice Williams ruled in December last year that the media could not name the judges, in a judgment that included a string of attacks on the integrity of journalists.
A collection of media organisations challenged that decision on open justice grounds, and Sir Geoffrey Vos, sitting in the Court of Appeal, said the High Court judge had got 'carried away' and 'undoubtedly behaved unfairly'.
The Court of Appeal then overturned the ban, allowing Judge Raeside and her colleagues to be named.
The court also heard that all three judges wanted 'to convey their profound shock, horror and sadness about what happened to Sara Sharif'.