'Worst social services department ever...' Sacked Baby P boss loses appeal

FORMER children's services chief Sharon Shoesmith today lost her High Court battle over her sacking following the death of Baby P.

Mr Justice Foskett, sitting in London, rejected accusations that her removal by Children's Secretary Ed Balls was procedurally flawed, unfair and unlawful.

Ms Shoesmith, from Mirfield, West Yorkshire, said her career had been ruined by a media witch-hunt and "flagrant breach of the rules of natural justice".

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

After Mr Balls's decision, the 57-year-old was sacked from her 130,000-a-year post as director of children's services at Haringey Council in north London in December 2008 following a damning report by Ofsted inspectors.

Ofsted's lead inspector, Heather Brown, described the quality of practice in Ms Shoesmith's department as the "worst I had ever seen".

Her lawyers argued she was never given a fair opportunity to see the findings and a chance to contradict them.

Instead she was made a political scapegoat following the public outcry over Baby P's death, they said.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

They said documents released after the main hearing of her legal challenge at London's High Court showed Ofsted rewrote the report under political pressure to make it more critical of her. Ofsted officials denied the allegations.

The inspectors went into Haringey in November 2008 after Mr Balls ordered an urgent review soon after the trial of those responsible for the death of Baby P, now named as Peter Connelly.

The High Court was told Ms Shoesmith was "shocked" by her "unlawful and unfair" treatment.

She received death threats and thought of suicide for the first time in her life.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Ms Shoesmith accused Mr Balls of unlawfully removing her from her office as director of Haringey's children's services on December 1 last year without giving her an opportunity to be heard - allowing himself to be influenced by a "media storm and witch-hunt".

Her lawyers also argued the Ofsted report was deeply flawed and unlawful.

Haringey Council was accused of failing to carry out a proper investigation before a panel of councillors sacked her from its employment, without compensation, a week after Mr Balls decided she was no longer fit to be in charge of protecting vulnerable children.

She attempted to overturn her dismissal, but her lawyers say she was never given a "meaningful" appeal.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Baby P was just 17 months old when he died in August 2007 at the hands of his mother Tracey Connelly, her lover Steven Barker and their lodger, Barker's brother Jason Owen.

He had suffered 50 injuries despite receiving 60 visits from social workers, doctors and police over the final eight months of his life.

A series of reviews identified missed opportunities when officials could have saved the little boy's life if they had acted properly on the warning signs in front of them.

Lawyers for Mr Balls argued Ms Shoesmith was "ultimately responsible" for the "shambolic, disturbing state of affairs" in Haringey's children's services department.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

James Eadie QC, appearing for Mr Balls, said the urgently arranged Ofsted inquiry had revealed that state of affairs continued even after the death of Baby Peter.

It was a particularly sensitive issue because Haringey was the scene of the Victoria Climbie tragedy seven years earlier.

Mr Eadie said the Children's Secretary had had to intervene "to restore public confidence locally within Haringey and nationally in the child protection system itself".

Ms Shoesmith's lawyers drew a parallel between Government intervention in the decision to dismiss her from her post to a similar "knee-jerk reaction" following the outcry over the Bulger case.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr Eadie denied the accusation and also rejected allegations that Mr Balls had acted to win "party" political points.

The judge concluded that Mr Balls's decision "cannot be impugned on the grounds of unfairness".

He stressed that there was "a very narrow focus" to the issues he had been required to consider.

That focus, he said, "relates to a review of the fairness or otherwise of the procedures adopted by Ofsted, the Secretary of State and Haringey."

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The judge added: "The focus is not on the merits of the decisions made, nor upon whether the Ofsted inspectors were correct in their assessment of Haringey at the time, nor on whether the final form of the report was unfairly strengthened during the report-writing state.

"Equally, it is not a judgment which decides whether the claimant is, or is not, entitled to compensation for the loss of her job."

The judge said that although it was a narrow focus, there were "one or two wider implications that may impact on child safeguarding arrangements more generally".

Although the result of the case was clear, the consequences required careful consideration.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Ms Shoesmith's legal team said they were "disappointed" by the judgment and added they were considering whether they had grounds to launch an appeal.

Her solicitors, London-based Beachcroft, said in a statement: "We are disappointed that, despite the serious criticisms made by the judge of Ofsted, the Secretary of State and Haringey Council, the judge has not upheld Sharon's claim for judicial review.

"We nevertheless welcome the finding that Haringey acted unfairly in dismissing Sharon.

"We will be giving careful consideration to the judgment, which runs to some 200 pages, and considering whether there are grounds for an appeal.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"This will take time. Pending that consideration, neither we, nor our client, will make any further statement."

Haringey Council welcomed the judgment, saying it continued to believe Ms Shoesmith was fairly dismissed.

The local authority said in a statement: "We welcome the court's agreement that Ms Shoesmith's claims are a matter for an employment tribunal.

"We continue to believe that the dismissal was fair and that fair processes were used that allowed Ms Shoesmith a proper hearing by the council.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"These matters will be fully explored by the employment tribunal in due course.

"We have nothing more to say in view of the employment tribunal due to take place late this year."

Mr Balls said in a statement following the judgment: "The death of Baby Peter was a terrible and heinous crime.

"It personally affected many millions of people across the country who were left disbelieving that he could have suffered for so long without proper help from the services who were supposed to keep him safe.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"The urgent Ofsted inspection, which I commissioned following the end of the trial, found very serious failings in children's services in Haringey.

"The fact that children were at risk meant it was right for me to take swift, decisive action when presented with the evidence. Faced with the same situation - and on the basis of the information put before me - I would arrive at the same decision.

"Eighteen months on, and following lengthy scrutiny, the judge, in his considered and extensive judgment, has found that my decision to remove Sharon Shoesmith from the post of director of children's services in Haringey was, indeed, lawful and that in directing her removal and replacement, I acted fairly and properly.

"As the judge says, the events giving rise to this case were unusual and perhaps unique. My concern was, at all times, for the safety of children in Haringey and wider confidence in child protection arrangements across the country.

"My decision was based on the evidence Ofsted presented to me in the joint area review inspection, which the judge has found was carried out correctly

Related topics: