Safeguarding review finds failures in Sara Sharif case
Content note: this article discusses child abuse and the death of a child, and includes references to neglect and domestic violence. If you need support, details are at the end of this piece.
An independent child safeguarding practice review has found that multiple agencies in Surrey missed opportunities to protect 10-year-old Sara Sharif after two years of abuse leading up to her murder in 2023. The report says there were several points-especially in the final months-when different actions could and should have been taken. In its plainest line, the review concludes that the system failed to keep her safe.
What a review like this does is look back across the whole timeline and ask: who knew what, when, and what did they do about it? In Sara’s case, professionals across Surrey Children’s Services, Surrey Police and the family court had been aware of domestic violence risk even before her birth. The review also records the judgment that her father and stepmother were a dangerous pairing and, with hindsight, should not have been trusted with her care.
Early court decisions are central to the story. Social workers initially sought to remove Sara from her parents for safety. After the first hearings, the court plan changed. Practitioners told reviewers they felt their concerns were not fully heard and that the children’s guardian’s view carried more weight in court. The reviewers say that when professionals disagree, those differences must be set out clearly for the judge so the risk picture is not blurred. For learners: a children’s guardian is appointed by the court to represent a child’s best interests; they are independent of the local authority.
Later, when Sara’s father remarried and applied for custody, an inexperienced social worker was asked to complete a Section 7 report for the court. That report, the review says, missed vital information because historic files were not thoroughly checked. Although the judge had been involved in earlier hearings, key facts were not brought back to the court’s attention-such as the father’s history of domestic abuse and previous violence towards the children, and his failure to complete a perpetrators’ programme before unsupervised contact. The learning here is simple but serious: chronology matters, and historic risks do not expire.
School concerns in March 2023 should have raised urgency. Staff reported a golf ball-sized bruise on Sara’s cheek and a marked change in her demeanour-from bubbly and musical to quiet and withdrawn. The contact was graded Amber, which meant a response within 24 hours, but the social worker did not speak to the school for more detail or check police records on the family. When challenged, the father gave a false medical explanation. The case closed with no social work action. Five months later, Sara was murdered.
After that school referral, Sara was withdrawn from education and effectively vanished from oversight. Surrey had a policy of visiting children who are home educated, but an administrative error meant the home education team went to the family’s previous address on 7 August 2023. The correct address was on the school’s referral, but the old one remained in another system. The next day, Sara-who had already suffered severe injuries-was killed.
Community members sometimes heard worrying noises but hesitated to report them. The review records that some neighbours feared being branded racist, particularly on social media. Here’s a helpful way to think about it: safeguarding concerns should be described in factual, behaviour-focused language-what you saw, what you heard, when it happened. Prejudice has no place in safeguarding, and fear of being misunderstood should not stop you from making a careful, honest report.
Clothing also featured in the review. Sara began wearing the hijab at eight, which the school explored sensitively with her and her stepmother, accepting an explanation linked to cultural interest after a family trip. In the last months of her life, the hijab hid bruising to her face and head. The lesson for schools is about curiosity over time: religious dress is not a risk factor, but consistent, respectful checks on a child’s wellbeing are essential when other worries already exist.
Leaders added their voices after publication. The Children’s Commissioner for England called the case a catalogue of missed opportunities, poor communication and ill‑informed assumptions. The education secretary described glaring failures across agencies. For readers building media literacy, notice how these phrases signal systemic, not individual, blame: the point is to change practice, not to scapegoat one worker.
If you are worried about a child, you can talk to your school’s designated safeguarding lead, contact your local authority children’s services, or call the police on 999 in an emergency. The NSPCC helpline is 0808 800 5000 for adults; young people can call Childline on 0800 1111. If you are reading outside the UK, use your country’s emergency number and child protection service. You do not need proof to share a concern-describe what you know and why you are uneasy.
What this means for us as learners and educators is practical. Record disagreements between professionals clearly so judges see the full picture. Check history before writing court reports-especially Section 7. When a school flags harm or a child disappears from the register, treat the gap as urgent, not administrative. And in our communities, report what you observe without fear. Reviews like this are painful to read, but they exist to help us do better for the next child. We all have a part to play.