What exactly do the authorities hope to learn that they do not already know from the safeguarding review now underway into the violent death of 10-year old Sara Sharif? The omens are not good.
Her father, Urfan Sharif, and her step-mother, Beinash Batool, subjected Sara to years of abuse
Sharif, whose father and stepmother were found guilty of her murder and have been jailed for life, is not the first child living in Britain to lose her life at the hands of those who should have been looking after her. But previous investigations into tragic child deaths – launched to a chorus of “never again” and “lessons will be learnt” – have failed to deliver lasting changes. In 2000, the extent of the abuse inflicted upon eight-year-old Victoria Climbie by her guardians shocked the nation. Promises of major changes followed.
In 2007, the case of 17-month-old baby Peter Connelly, whose mother and stepfather were convicted for causing or allowing the death of the toddler, led to another national outcry. The serious case review found Peter’s “horrifying death could and should have been prevented”. The report into the death in 2020 of Arthur Labinjo Hughes, aged six, also identified child protection failures, followed by the more promises of action. Will it really be any different this time? How many more reviews will it take to ensure that vulnerable children are not failed again in the future?
Sara was found dead with more than 70 external injuries and 25 fractures at her family home in Woking, Surrey on 10 August, 2023. Her father, Urfan Sharif, and her step-mother, Beinash Batool, subjected Sara to years of abuse. In court, detail upon detail emerged of how Sarah was let down by the authorities for years before her tragic death. Concerns about her welfare had been raised several times to social services, the family courts and her school. Sara’s father had repeated contact with social services and police before he was charged with murdering her last summer. Five months before, Sara’s school made a referral to social services after bruises were spotted on her face but the case was closed within days. Even though Sara was identified as being at risk of abuse, her father was allowed to remove her from school to be educated at home. A few months later, she was dead.
The authorities involved have plenty of questions to answer about why more was not done to protect Sara. Surrey children’s services are in the firing line and rightly so. Bosses repeatedly ignored warnings from Ofsted that children in the area were being failed before Sara was murdered. An Ofsted report in 2014 rated Surrey children’s services inadequate. One key finding said: “A significant number of children in need are not receiving the level of support and monitoring necessary to ensure their welfare and protection.”
Four years later, in 2018, a full Ofsted inspection found that the service still failed in its duties to children who needed protection. Council bosses have received honours such as CBEs and OBEs while their services were not providing proper safeguards for children. Talk about rewarding failure.
It does not need yet another official review to diagnose that the same factors are at play again and again: poor communication and information sharing between relevant agencies; people in positions of authority who see something is wrong, but fail to intervene; those who do try to do something are too often ignored; and a systemic failure across all agencies to follow up on concerns or join the dots identifying a pattern of abuse until it is too late.
Dame Rachel de Souza, the children’s commissioner, is right to suggest there should be “no more reviews, no more strategies, no more debate”. She wants immediate action, including the introduction of better mechanisms for sharing data on vulnerable children between the various children’s services. She also suggests that each child be given a unique “identifier”, which would act like an NHS number to collate different sources of information in one place. De Souza is also right to call it madness that the law currently allows parents to take children out of school, even in cases in which concerns have been raised. No child at risk of abuse should be allowed to be home-educated. Changes can, and should, be made without waiting on the findings of yet another lengthy investigation.
Comments