Starmer: Questions need to be answered over Sara Sharif’s murder

Sir Keir Starmer has said questions need to be answered over the murder of 10-year-old Sara Sharif.

Sara was found dead at her home in Woking, Surrey on Aug 10 last year after being “tortured” for years by her father and stepmother. Urfan Sharif, 42, and Beinash Batool, 30, were convicted of her murder at the Old Bailey on Wednesday.

Speaking to broadcasters on Thursday, the Prime Minister said: “My first response is a human response. This is just an awful case. It’s very hard to see, to read about. It’s just shocking.

“So that’s where I start on this. Obviously, there’s going to be questions that need to be answered in relation to this case.”

Asked whether the Government would ban smacking children in its Children’s Wellbeing Bill, he said: “I don’t think that we should allow ourselves to think that, whatever the rules on smacking are, that’s got anything to do with this case.

“This is about violence. It’s about abuse. It’s about making sure that [there are] protecting safeguards for children, particularly those being home-schooled. So that’s where I think the questions are. But my response, first and foremost, is just the most awful case that many people, many viewers will find very, very, very hard to hear.”

On Thursday, Lucy Powell, the Leader of the House of Commons, said that the Government will “imminently” announce details of “stronger safeguards for children being taken into home education” as she paid tribute to the murdered 10-year-old.

She told MPs: “Can I start first of all by saying how appalled I am, and I am sure the whole House is, on the details that have emerged in the murder of Sara Sharif. And can I say on behalf of the Government that nothing is more important than keeping children safe.

“We are committed to further reform of children’s social care and much stronger safeguards for children being taken into home education. This is long overdue, and further details will be announced imminently.”

It comes amid renewed calls to ban smacking in England and not to allow children at risk of abuse to be home-schooled. Sharif and Batool had removed Sara from school after learning that social services had been contacted by teachers.

In the final eight months of Sara’s life, her father and stepmother forced her to wear a hijab after teachers noticed bruises on her head and neck.

On Wednesday, Dame Rachel de Souza, the children’s commissioner, called on ministers to change the law to prevent smacking children.

After fleeing to Pakistan following Sara’s death on Aug 8 last year, Sharif called Surrey Police to say that he had “legally punished” his daughter for being naughty and that she had subsequently died.

Under current laws in England, parents and carers are prohibited from smacking their children except when it amounts to “reasonable punishment” or “reasonable chastisement”. Both Scotland and Wales have removed this defence, but the same has not happened in England.

Dame Rachel said: “The law needs to change. The outdated defence in assault law that permits ‘reasonable chastisement’ of children must be removed as a matter of urgency, through the Children’s Wellbeing Bill being introduced to Parliament imminently.

“What haunts me the most about Sara’s death is that her father used the words ‘I legally punished my child’, believing this to be a defence to murder. It is unthinkable that any parent or carer could hide behind our legal system to justify such cruelty – and yet children living in England today have less protection from assault than adults.”

Maria Neophytou, the acting chief executive of children’s charity the NSPCC, said Sara’s murder “highlighted the ambiguity of the current legal position in England around the physical punishment of children”.

She said: “Sara Sharif was repeatedly assaulted and tortured before being finally murdered by her father and stepmother in what was an absolutely shocking case of brutal and prolonged abuse.”

Speaking to The Telegraph, Will Forster, who became the MP for Woking in July, said that the review into the Sara’s death had to look at every aspect of her care.

Mr Forster said an inquest into Sara’s death should examine if concerns over cultural sensitivities meant teachers were afraid to question why she began wearing a hijab after being seen with bruises.

The eight-week trial heard that Sara was beaten with a cricket bat, burnt with an iron, and restrained and hooded with packing tape.

Sara had previously been seen with bruises on her face but, despite that, The Telegraph understands the issue of the change in her appearance was never raised with social services.

Mr Forster told The Telegraph that what had emerged during the trial was “appalling” but “there is still more to come out”.

Asked whether there were concerns over the fact that the school had never questioned Sara suddenly beginning to wear a hijab after being seen with bruises, he said: “Yes – everything needs to be looked at in the inquest and studied.

“Until we have the inquest and safeguarding review, we won’t know the full facts. As soon as we do I think we can then learn lessons.”

Sara was taken out of school on two occasions prior to her death to be home-schooled. A few weeks before she was removed for the first time, teachers noticed bruises on her face and made a referral to social services. The council conducted checks but closed the case within six days.

When she was taken out of school for the second time, teachers contacted the social services safeguarding team and were told that if they had concerns, they should make a referral, but this did not happen.

Mr Forster said that the fact that Sara was taken out of school after being seen with bruises had to be examined to prevent other parents “abusing the system”.

He said that the abuse the schoolgirl suffered at the hands of the people who were meant to protect her was “heartbreaking and vile”, adding: “Although it’s right that justice has been served, we now owe it to Sara’s memory to ensure that a horrendous case like this can’t happen again.

“Sara was tortured for 10 years. It is heartbreaking to think of the warning signs that were missed that allowed her to die at the hands of those who were meant to protect her. We need an immediate inquest into her murder. This will be vital for understanding how the system let Sara down and what changes will be needed to prevent this tragedy from happening again.”

Dame Rachel also urged changes to law so that children who are suspected victims of abuse cannot be home educated, adding: “There can be no doubt that Sara was failed in the starkest terms by the safety net of services around her.

“Even before she was born, she was known to social care – and yet she fell off their radar so entirely that by the time she died, she was invisible to them all. We can have no more reviews, no more strategies, no more debate. When we say ‘never again’, we have to mean it – let that be Sara’s legacy.”

Dame Rachel called for reforms including “proper oversight” for children such as Sara being home-schooled and a home education register, which is to be included in the Government’s proposed Children’s Wellbeing Bill. She also said councils should be given powers to sign off on home education requests for vulnerable children.

Rachael Wardell, of Surrey County council, said that, until an independent safeguarding review has concluded, a “complete picture cannot be understood or commented upon”.