Authored By: Anuoluwapo Babalola
Coventry University
Case Citation: [2024] 12 WLUK 274.
Abstract
Sara Sharif, a 10-year-old girl from Woking, Surrey, was found dead in a bunkbed at her home on August 10, 2023. Her death reignited critical concerns and discussions surrounding child protection frameworks and the effectiveness of the United Kingdom’s (UK) safeguarding judicial oversight. This article examines the legal and systematic failures that contributed to the victim’s case, assesses whether existing child protection mechanisms sufficiently safeguard children at risk of domestic abuse and discuss how gaps in intervention and oversight can be rectified.
The Case
Post-mortem examinations revealed that the victim had been subject to prolonged abuse, suffered extensive injuries, leading up to her tragic death. It was said that she suffered 71 injuries including 25 broken bones, iron burns on her bottom, scalding marks to her feet and human bite marks [1]. Authorities had prior interactions with her family, but interventions failed to prevent her death. The victim lived with the main perpetrators; her father, Urfan Sharif, her stepmother, Beenish Batool and her uncle, Faisal Malik. To avoid further investigation from the authorities, it was reported that the child was removed from school to be home-schooled in attempts to mask visible injuries. On August 10, 2023, Mr Sharif made an emergency call from Pakistan, informing UK authorities of the death of his daughter in their family home. It was later discovered that the day prior to the discovery of the body, Mr Sharif, along side his wife and brother, fled to Pakistan taking five other children in hopes of no return. Arrest warrants were issued and in September 2023, Mr Sharif et al were arrested and extradited from Pakistan back to the United Kingdom. In December 2023, they pleaded not guilty for the charges of murder and child cruelty however found guilty the following year, December 2024, on the grounds of murder, child neglect, torture and causing the death of a child. Sentences of life imprisonment were imposed, minimum of 40 years for the father and 33 years for the stepmother. A sentence of 16 years imprisonment was issued to the victim’s uncle for causing or allowing the death of a child.
Analysis
Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989[2], it is required that social services are to intervene when a child is a risk of significant harm. This duty includes conducting thorough assessments, safeguarding the child and where necessary the removal of the child from the harmful environment. However, in the case of Sara Sharif, despite clear warning signs of neglect and abuse, child protective authorities failed to take decisive action. It was indicated that there were concerns about her well-being, yet social services did not implement effective safeguarding measures thus failing their legal duty. Even more so, police visited the family home, yet no legal action was taken to remove the victim from the home. This raises serious questions about why interventions were delayed and whether the threshold for action was set too high, leading to a preventable tragedy.
A wider issue in the multi-agency safeguarding system is the underestimation of ongoing neglect and abuse. While a single concern might not always be triggering, repeated signs of harm should have led to stronger intervention. The fact that the case was not escalated after police intervention suggests poor coordination or decisive action taking. Nevertheless, it is also important to consider whether the social services were understaffed, overwhelmed or lacking oversight, which may have contributed to inaction. An improvement of communication between agencies, enforcing existing laws and strengthening risk assessments are crucial to the prevention of similar failure and duty breaches.
The ability of the suspects to flee the UK immediately after the death of Sara Sharif highlights a major jurisdictional gap in protecting at-risk children from potential harm. Despite clear signs of ongoing abuse and neglect, no legal restrictions were in place to prevent the suspects from leaving the country, raising serious concerns about the effectiveness of border controls, law enforcement coordination and risk assessment procedures. This demonstrates the lack of speed of the UK child protective and criminal justice systems to prevent potential offenders from fleeing accountability. Once the suspects fled to Pakistan, the process of apprehension becomes more complex due to the legal and diplomatic challenges involved in extradition.
The Extradition Act 2003[3] allows countries to cooperate to return suspects facing serious charges but the extradition delays often hinder the swift return of those responsible. Extradition is typically delayed by political legal and procedural issues, making investigations longer and reduces the effectiveness of law enforcement. Such delays highlight failures in international law enforcement and border security thus weakening public trust in the judicial system. As the need to ensure a fair and timely trial[4], in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), becomes harder to achieve. Given the severity of the crime, authorities should have acted promptly by either placing the suspects on a watchlist or issuing an emergency arrest warrant. Instead, action was only taken after the suspects have departed, showing a reactive rather than proactive approach. Loopholes in jurisdiction where suspects can escape justice by travelling to a country with weak extradition rules need to be addressed and filled whether that is through stronger international relations or tighter border controls.
Conclusion
Sara Sharif’s death serves as a reminder of the systemic failures within the UK’s child protection system. Despite numerous concerns, authorities failed to intervene in time, highlighting significant gaps in early intervention, multi-agency collaboration, and international legal cooperation. While the Children Act[5] and statutory safeguarding guidance provide a solid legal foundation, these failures underpin the need for tighter laws, better oversight and more effective intervention strategies. If meaningful reforms are implemented, Sara’s case could act as a catalyst for ensuring that no child is left unprotected due to administrative shortcomings or legal loopholes.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Case
Legislation
Children Act 1989
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended)
The Extradition Act 2003
Secondary Sources
Book
Journal Articles
Website
H Wilkinson and J Panons, ‘Sara Sharif’s dad ‘should serve whole life order’ (BBC News, 13 March 2025) < https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03409me0o > accessed 31 March 2025
[1] H Wilkinson and J Panons, ‘Sara Sharif’s dad ‘should serve whole life order’ (BBC News, 13 March 2025) < https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y03409me0o > accessed 31 March 2025.
[2] The Children Act 1989, s 47(1).
[3] The Extradition Act 2003, s 24.
[4] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) art 6.
[5] The Children Act 1989, s 47.
