It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was
Judge Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the
public in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed >analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her decision?
Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc? Why hang
Raeside out to dry?
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was
Judge Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the
public in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her decision?
Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc? Why hang
Raeside out to dry?
Or did she fail to see the Face of Evil in Urfan Sharif, which every
ordinary bystander can see quite clearlY?
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was Judge >Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the public
in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed >analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her decision?
Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc? Why hang
Raeside out to dry?
Or did she fail to see the Face of Evil in Urfan Sharif, which every
ordinary bystander can see quite clearlY?
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:25:21 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was
Judge Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the
public in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed
analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her decision?
Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc? Why hang
Raeside out to dry?
I think it's the simple fact that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. Giving judges anonymity to protect them from abuse may seem like an attractive option. But it doesn't really solve the underlying problem. It's a "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done" response.
Mark
On 01/02/2025 in message <m06p6hFkv76U3@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was Judge
Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the public
in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed
analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her decision?
Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc? Why hang
Raeside out to dry?
Or did she fail to see the Face of Evil in Urfan Sharif, which every
ordinary bystander can see quite clearlY?
It seems to me from what has been published that the social workers did everything they possibly could to protect this young girl, effectively
from when she was born, but were let down very badly by our legal system.
Naming the judge seems to be a vendetta by the Daily Mail, I am not sure
what it achieves, except perhaps to try and force an enquiry?
On 1 Feb 2025 at 14:50:03 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
I think it's the simple fact that justice must not only be done, but must be >> seen to be done. Giving judges anonymity to protect them from abuse may seem >> like an attractive option. But it doesn't really solve the underlying
problem. It's a "something must be done, this is something, so this must be >> done" response.
In which case it is the judgment, not the judge's name, that needs to be >publihed. I think the family court is beginning to acknowledge this.
On 01/02/2025 14:25, The Todal wrote:
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was
Judge Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the
public in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed
analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her
decision? Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc?
Why hang Raeside out to dry?
Or did she fail to see the Face of Evil in Urfan Sharif, which every
ordinary bystander can see quite clearlY?
As always, if you haven't already done so, I recommend reading the
judgment in full. [^1]
The issue before the Court of Appeal, as the Master of the Rolls stated, "raises questions that are of considerable public importance".
The appeal was allowed primarily because Mr Justice Williams did not
have jurisdiction to prevent publication of the judges' names when he
made the anonymity order back in December 2024.
No party had asked for the names of the three circuit judges to be
anonymised nor had the judge heard submissions on the point.
Additionally, he had not mentioned to the parties that was minded to
make the order.
The potential jurisdictional foundation for the order was section 6 of
the Human Rights Act 1998 and section 37 of the Senior Courts Act
The Court of Appeal held that Williams J had no evidential basis on
which to think that the threshold for the application of Articles 2, 3,
or 8 ECHR had been reached.
Whilst it is understandable and possibly even commendable that Williams
J made the anonymity order, the CoA must ensure that the rule of law is followed and on that basis had no choice but to allow the appeal.
As for the comments aimed at Judge Raeside, I would hope and expect that
the relevant authorities deal with them to the fullest extent possible.
As the CoA made clear, [67], the judgment is "not saying that judges are obliged to tolerate any form of abuse or threats" but such abuse and
threats should be "adequately addressed by other security measures".
Regards
S.P.
[^1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/42.html
On 01/02/2025 19:55, Simon Parker wrote:
On 01/02/2025 14:25, The Todal wrote:
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was
Judge Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the
public in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed
analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her
decision? Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc?
Why hang Raeside out to dry?
Or did she fail to see the Face of Evil in Urfan Sharif, which every
ordinary bystander can see quite clearlY?
As always, if you haven't already done so, I recommend reading the
judgment in full. [^1]
The issue before the Court of Appeal, as the Master of the Rolls stated,
"raises questions that are of considerable public importance".
The appeal was allowed primarily because Mr Justice Williams did not
have jurisdiction to prevent publication of the judges' names when he
made the anonymity order back in December 2024.
No party had asked for the names of the three circuit judges to be
anonymised nor had the judge heard submissions on the point.
Additionally, he had not mentioned to the parties that was minded to
make the order.
The potential jurisdictional foundation for the order was section 6 of
the Human Rights Act 1998 and section 37 of the Senior Courts Act
The Court of Appeal held that Williams J had no evidential basis on
which to think that the threshold for the application of Articles 2, 3,
or 8 ECHR had been reached.
Whilst it is understandable and possibly even commendable that Williams
J made the anonymity order, the CoA must ensure that the rule of law is
followed and on that basis had no choice but to allow the appeal.
As for the comments aimed at Judge Raeside, I would hope and expect that
the relevant authorities deal with them to the fullest extent possible.
As the CoA made clear, [67], the judgment is "not saying that judges are
obliged to tolerate any form of abuse or threats" but such abuse and
threats should be "adequately addressed by other security measures".
Regards
S.P.
[^1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/42.html
Obviously I can see that it was wrong to make an order that concealed
the identity of Judge Raeside. That's a given.
But what I would like to see, if anyone can find a link, is the full
judgment of Judge Raeside, or more than one judgment, explaining in
detail how she arrived at her decision that the child be placed with its violent father. Plus an intelligent analysis of where the judge went
wrong or what part of the evidence before her was misleading.
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was
Judge Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the
public in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her decision?
Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc? Why hang
Raeside out to dry?
Or did she fail to see the Face of Evil in Urfan Sharif, which every
ordinary bystander can see quite clearlY?
On 1 Feb 2025 at 14:50:03 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:25:21 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was
Judge Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the
public in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed
analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her decision? >>> Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc? Why hang
Raeside out to dry?
I think it's the simple fact that justice must not only be done, but must be >> seen to be done. Giving judges anonymity to protect them from abuse may seem >> like an attractive option. But it doesn't really solve the underlying
problem. It's a "something must be done, this is something, so this must be >> done" response.
Mark
In which case it is the judgment, not the judge's name, that needs to be publihed. I think the family court is beginning to acknowledge this.
Naming the judge seems to be a vendetta by the Daily Mail, I am not sure
what it achieves, except perhaps to try and force an enquiry?
On 01/02/2025 19:55, Simon Parker wrote:
On 01/02/2025 14:25, The Todal wrote:
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was
Judge Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the
public in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a
detailed analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made
her decision? Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers
etc? Why hang Raeside out to dry?
Or did she fail to see the Face of Evil in Urfan Sharif, which every
ordinary bystander can see quite clearlY?
As always, if you haven't already done so, I recommend reading the
judgment in full. [^1]
The issue before the Court of Appeal, as the Master of the Rolls
stated, "raises questions that are of considerable public importance".
The appeal was allowed primarily because Mr Justice Williams did not
have jurisdiction to prevent publication of the judges' names when he
made the anonymity order back in December 2024.
No party had asked for the names of the three circuit judges to be
anonymised nor had the judge heard submissions on the point.
Additionally, he had not mentioned to the parties that was minded to
make the order.
The potential jurisdictional foundation for the order was section 6 of
the Human Rights Act 1998 and section 37 of the Senior Courts Act
The Court of Appeal held that Williams J had no evidential basis on
which to think that the threshold for the application of Articles 2,
3, or 8 ECHR had been reached.
Whilst it is understandable and possibly even commendable that
Williams J made the anonymity order, the CoA must ensure that the rule
of law is followed and on that basis had no choice but to allow the
appeal.
As for the comments aimed at Judge Raeside, I would hope and expect
that the relevant authorities deal with them to the fullest extent
possible.
As the CoA made clear, [67], the judgment is "not saying that judges
are obliged to tolerate any form of abuse or threats" but such abuse
and threats should be "adequately addressed by other security measures".
Regards
S.P.
[^1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/42.html
Obviously I can see that it was wrong to make an order that concealed
the identity of Judge Raeside. That's a given.
But what I would like to see, if anyone can find a link, is the full
judgment of Judge Raeside, or more than one judgment, explaining in
detail how she arrived at her decision that the child be placed with its violent father. Plus an intelligent analysis of where the judge went
wrong or what part of the evidence before her was misleading.
I'm not at all impressed with our journalists these days - are they not
paid enough, or have they never been trained in how to do a decent piece
of investigatory journalism?
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was
Judge Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the
public in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed >analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her decision?
Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc? Why hang
Raeside out to dry?
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was
Judge Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the
public in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed
analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her decision?
Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc? Why hang
Raeside out to dry?
Or did she fail to see the Face of Evil in Urfan Sharif, which every
ordinary bystander can see quite clearlY?
If nothing else, she made the final decision which sent the child ‘home’.
Judges - along with Social Workers, those who sit on Parole Boards, ….. should be prepared to accept responsibility for their decisions.
Indeed, until they are forced to, we will continue to see crass decisions which lead to child abuse, sexual assaults, murders, ….. by know criminals.
On Sat, 01 Feb 2025 14:54:46 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Naming the judge seems to be a vendetta by the Daily Mail, I am not sure
what it achieves, except perhaps to try and force an enquiry?
Not really sure I like the idea of justice from behind a mask.
In nearly all walks of life people are required to be accountable for
their actions. If we start expanding those that are not, it's an easy way
to tyranny.
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:25:21 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was
Judge Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the
public in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed
analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her decision?
Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc? Why hang
Raeside out to dry?
The report in Saturday's Guardian said that the judge who authorised releasing her name said that the her decision was reasonable by the
standards of the day, or words to that effect.
On 02/02/2025 12:13, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:25:21 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was
Judge Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the
public in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed
analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her decision? >>> Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc? Why hang
Raeside out to dry?
The report in Saturday's Guardian said that the judge who authorised
releasing her name said that the her decision was reasonable by the
standards of the day, or words to that effect.
However, if open justice means anything it ought to be possible for the public, through journalists and/or experienced lawyers and other professionals to establish (a) whether Raeside's decision actually was reasonable (why should we take another judge's word for it?) and (b)
which parts of the evidence before her were in some way deficient? Did experts make mistakes? Was it all based on the child claiming that it
was her mother who assaulted her?
On 02/02/2025 12:13, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:25:21 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was
Judge Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the
public in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed
analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her decision? >>> Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc? Why hang
Raeside out to dry?
The report in Saturday's Guardian said that the judge who authorised
releasing her name said that the her decision was reasonable by the
standards of the day, or words to that effect.
However, if open justice means anything it ought to be possible for the public, through journalists and/or experienced lawyers and other professionals to establish (a) whether Raeside's decision actually was reasonable (why should we take another judge's word for it?) and (b)
which parts of the evidence before her were in some way deficient? Did experts make mistakes? Was it all based on the child claiming that it
was her mother who assaulted her?
On 01/02/2025 18:15, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2025 14:54:46 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Naming the judge seems to be a vendetta by the Daily Mail, I am not
sure what it achieves, except perhaps to try and force an enquiry?
Not really sure I like the idea of justice from behind a mask.
In nearly all walks of life people are required to be accountable for
their actions. If we start expanding those that are not, it's an easy
way to tyranny.
I would expect a judge (and his family) to be adequately protected from unhappy criminals.
On 03/02/2025 12:43, The Todal wrote:
On 02/02/2025 12:13, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:25:21 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
It is now widely publicised by most news outlets that the judge who
ordered that Sara Sharif be placed back with her violent father was
Judge Raeside.
As a result, vituperative comments are made by many members of the
public in comment boards etc, directed at Raeside.
What is the point, really? Of naming her but not publishing a detailed >>>> analysis of her reasons and the evidence on which she made her
decision?
Were there mistakes by social workers, police, lawyers etc? Why hang >>>> Raeside out to dry?
The report in Saturday's Guardian said that the judge who authorised
releasing her name said that the her decision was reasonable by the
standards of the day, or words to that effect.
However, if open justice means anything it ought to be possible for
the public, through journalists and/or experienced lawyers and other
professionals to establish (a) whether Raeside's decision actually was
reasonable (why should we take another judge's word for it?) and (b)
which parts of the evidence before her were in some way deficient? Did
experts make mistakes? Was it all based on the child claiming that it
was her mother who assaulted her?
It's not always someone else's fault.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 499 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 44:54:59 |
| Calls: | 9,833 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,764 |
| Messages: | 6,193,628 |