[bbfan1991]

Ex-children's services director Sharon Shoesmith says she is "thrilled" to have won a Court of Appeal battle over her sacking after Baby Peter's death.

Judges said then education secretary Ed Balls and her employers, Haringey Council, had been "procedurally unfair" when they sacked her three years ago.

The education department and Haringey plan to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Baby Peter Connelly, who had been seen 60 times by social services, was found dead in 2007 with over 50 injuries.

Ms Shoesmith's appeal was challenging a High Court ruling that cleared Ed Balls, the north London borough of Haringey and watchdog Ofsted, of acting unlawfully.

The Court of Appeal judges dismissed her appeal against Ofsted.

Ofsted said its report on Ms Shoesmith's department, which identified "insufficient strategic leadership and management oversight", had been vindicated.

A Haringey Council spokesman said it was "deeply disappointed" by the judgement and stood by everything it had done.

Sacked on TV

In December 2008, Ms Shoesmith was sacked, bringing her 35-year career to an abrupt end.

Continue reading the main story
Analysis
Alison Holt

Social Affairs Correspondent, BBC News

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Shoesmith was a Director of Haringey Children's Services, a statutory role set up after the murder of Victoria Climbie more than a decade ago.

It aimed to place a line of responsibility drawn directly from the social worker visiting the child to the senior manager making decisions about the service.

There were undoubtedly serious mistakes made in the handling of Peter Connelly's case, but those mistakes were made by many of the agencies involved.

In the white heat that the case created, Sharon Shoesmith has always said she became a convenient scapegoat.

When her head rolled, it is argued, it turned scrutiny away from others, including the then Secretary of State, Ed Balls.

Many senior managers who run children's services will be very relieved by this ruling.

They claim the way in which Sharon Shoesmith was sacked did nothing to ensure people learnt from this tragedy.
She said she first heard of her dismissal when Ed Balls announced she would be removed from her post with immediate effect in a live press conference on television.

After the hearing, she said: "I'm over the moon. Absolutely thrilled.

"I am very relieved to have won my appeal and for recognition I was treated unfairly and unlawfully."

She said the sorrow of Peter's death would "stay with me for the rest of my life".

"But as the judges have said, making a 'public sacrifice' of an individual will not prevent further tragedies," she added.

At a hearing in March, Ms Shoesmith had asked Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, sitting with Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, to rule that her sacking without compensation was so legally flawed as to be null and void.

Her lawyers had argued that she was the victim of "a flagrant breach of natural justice" after she lost her £133,000-a-year post amid a media storm.

Ms Shoesmith also argued she was entitled to her full salary and pension from Haringey up to the present day.

'Tainted by unfairness'

In court, James Eadie QC, appearing for the government, defended Mr Balls, saying urgent action had to be taken following the "ghastly findings" of the Ofsted report.

But the judges allowed Ms Shoesmith's appeal against the former children's secretary because "the secretary of state did not afford Ms Shoesmith the opportunity to put her case".

Continue reading the main story
Baby Peter timeline

3 August 2007: One-year-old Peter Connelly (Baby P) found dead in his cot
11 November 2008: Peter's mother, Tracey Connelly, boyfriend Steven Barker and brother Jason Owen convicted of causing his death
13 November 2008: Ed Balls orders inquiry into role of the local authority, the health authority and the police
8 December 2008: Ms Shoesmith is sacked with immediate effect
22 May 2009: Connelly, Owen and Barker all get lengthy jail sentences
15 September 2010: Ms Shoesmith asks a House of Commons committee why the police and health services had not also been made to take responsibility
27 May 2011: The Court of Appeal rules in favour of Ms Shoesmith
Timeline of Baby P case
"In short, she was denied the elementary fairness which the law requires," they said.

They also rejected a submission that the situation had been too urgent to allow for a fairer procedure to be adopted.

In the case of Haringey, the judges said: "We were unanimously of the view that Haringey's procedures were tainted by unfairness."

Lawyers for Ms Shoesmith said the ruling meant she could now launch appeals against Ed Balls and Haringey Council.

The BBC's education correspondent Reeta Chakrabarti said the Court of Appeal had indicated there was no question of Ms Shoesmith returning to her position at Haringey Council.

The matter of compensation or lost earnings would need to be considered by another court, she added.

Earlier, the court heard Ms Shoesmith had not been able to find work since she was sacked, had experienced suicidal thoughts and continued to be vilified by the press.

Outside court, she said: "I would love to go back to work (in Haringey) but that's not possible but I hope to carry on with my career with children in some capacity."

In the case of Ofsted, the judges concluded its damning report "complied with the requirements of statute and common law".

Head of Ofsted, Christine Gilbert, said: "I am pleased that Ofsted has comprehensively won this case and that the original judicial review judgement in our favour has been upheld in every aspect on appeal.

"Ofsted carried out a robust inspection and came to a sound conclusion based on evidence.

"On any view, our inspection report was extremely critical and there has been no challenge to the finding that services for children in Haringey were inadequate."

Seventeen-month-old Baby P, subsequently named as Peter Connelly, was found to have suffered fractured ribs and a broken back after months of abuse at home. His mother, her partner and a lodger were all jailed for causing or allowing his death in August 2007.

Peter had been seen by health and social services professionals from Haringey council 60 times in the eight months before he died.

Disgraceful.

[BB_Eye]

In other news, my friend who worked at Haringey Social Services has been made redundant. Funny old world.

[Grimnir]

If it was upto me I would have sacked every single worker in a managerial role upto and including shoesmith

They are crap social services, they most likely sit around all day in their office chatting and gossiping, then at weekend go out and get pissed.

Convo at work after they heard about baby peter would be something like this

"omg you hear about that baby aawwww what a shame, so sad isnt it, really" with fake sympathy

2mins later...

"anyway whose up for night out this friday, we can get pissed and sick in the gutter and ave right ole laugh"

[BB_Eye]

It's tempting to believe that the same issues which lead to the death of Victoria Climbie at Haringey Children and Young People's Services are what caused the death of Baby P and it's true enough that Haringey Council seems rotten to the core, but surely Shoesmith, as head manager, tasked with reforming the service in the aftermath of Climbie's (and paid a massive salary for it too) should take responsibility for allowing it to get so out of hand. She had 10 years to prevent this from happening again.

The only vague argument I can see for compensating Shoesmith is Ed Balls using his executive powers to sack her instead of those in charge of the Local Authority (Haringey Council's own failings are another story). But the Children's Secretary's powers were there for a reason and he was within his rights to exercise them so I see nothing unfair in the procedure. She may have had her name dragged through the press, but her compensation was in wages lost, not in personal damages, lets bear that in mind. The "scapegoating" is something could easily have taken up with the press.

Incidentally I find it really crass that she has taken this case to appeal to get her six figure salaries repaid at a time when half of Haringey Children and Young People's Services are being made redundant, much less that the courts ruled in her favour.

[Angus]

Cameron is appealing the decision on the grounds that the Judiciary have no right to interfere in governmental decisions regarding the hiring and firing of civil service staff who are incompetent and, in this case, downright irresponsible, ineffective and dangerous, in post. Shoesmith had some bloody nerve to have pursued this matter - what about that poor baby who died because of her total inability to do her job properly? Yet another example of out of touch judges who are more interested in the letter of the law than actual justice. It's unbelievable, and quite frankly disgusting, that she won her appeal purely on a procedural technicality, rather than a review of her role in the death of Baby P (and others).

If it wasn't about the money (according to her), then she should hand the £2.5 million over to children's charities - but I won't hold my breath.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by angus58

Cameron is appealing the decision on the grounds that the Judiciary have no right to interfere in governmental decisions regarding the hiring and firing of civil service staff who are incompetent and, in this case, downright irresponsible, ineffective and dangerous, in post. Shoesmith had some bloody nerve to have pursued this matter - what about that poor baby who died because of her total inability to do her job properly? Yet another example of out of touch judges who are more interested in the letter of the law than actual justice. It's unbelievable, and quite frankly disgusting, that she won her appeal purely on a procedural technicality, rather than a review of her role in the death of Baby P (and others).

If it wasn't about the money (according to her), then she should hand the £2.5 million over to children's charities - but I won't hold my breath.

I am concerned at this decision too, I agree with you Angus58. A really bad and worrying decision by the Judges.

[InOne]

It is riduculous. Not to defend the decisions the social services or anything, but Peter was an extreme case. I don't think anyone could've anticipated the level of violence he had to suffer

[Mr XcX]

She deserved this IMO.

She acted proffesional during interviews and defended Social Services. Yet they repayed her by sacking her.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Mr XcX

She deserved this IMO.

She acted proffesional during interviews and defended Social Services. Yet they repayed her by sacking her.

Rubbish. This woman was paid mega bucks in post and took the job on the understanding that she is ultimately accountable for what happens under her leadership, and thus she is responsible for the death of Baby P. She failed not just Baby P but other vulnerable children who were supposed to be being protected by Social Services over whom she appears to have had poor control and to whom she offered poor guidance by failing to implement proper procedures.

She was clearly not up to the job and since the buck stops with her, she was justifiably held accountable and sacked. No doubt had she actually saved the lives of the children who died, she would hypocritally be self congratulatory and claiming credit for her amazing leadership qualities! So what do we do for this incompetent, ineffectual woman? Why, we give her £2.5 million of public funds as a reward for her hurt feelings!

This is yet another example of the cynical abuse of the compensation culture in this country which absolves individuals of responsibility for their own actions.