Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Sharon Shoesmith wins appeal
From BBC Website
An ex-children's services director says she is "thrilled" to have won a Court of Appeal battle over her sacking after Baby Peter's death in 2007.
Judges allowed Sharon Shoesmith's challenge against a High Court ruling that cleared former children's secretary Ed Balls and Haringey Council of acting unlawfully.
The education department said it planned to appeal to the Supreme Court.
I look forward to finding time to read through the judgement; but in any case, it's now wait-and-see to hear how the Supreme Court weigh it up.
BBC Story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13570959
Full Court of Appeal judgment: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/shoes...
Tags for Forum Posts: appeal, baby, court, dismissal, p, shoesmith, unlawful
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
My apologies for a serious error in my comment above. The main judgement - nearly 40 of the 42 pages - was delivered by Lord Justice Maurice Kay. The quotations above are his.
He also comments on the basis for compensation to be paid to Ms Shoesmith. Though in in general terms only since:
". . . I do not consider that we have received sufficient by way of submissions for us to reach a concluded view as to the appropriate order."
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Baby P's mother and her boyfriend got more justice than Sharon Shoesmith.
-
-
Michelle, you normally have a very high regard for hard facts and evidence; and don't usually rely on what "may have been"; or what you "imagine" happened.
Was there " . . . probably just a culture of not wanting to make a fuss"? That's not my recollection. During her time in Haringey I remember heated arguments on a range of contentious issues.
Is it true that she ". . . she hadn't bothered to point out to anyone" that she was short of resources? That doesn't sound like Sharon's style. But we could ask her if you like. (Though for obvious reasons we might not get an answer until after the legal proceedings are over.)
Before deciding why she was sacked, there's the question of when. I take the key facts to be as set out in paragraphs 5-7 of the Court of Appeal judgement. (Which clearly, you've read.) Sharon Shoesmith was sacked by a Haringey Disciplinary Panel on 8 December 2008. But this followed a decision by Ed Balls on 1 December 2008 to remove her from the post of Director of Children's Services “this afternoon and immediately”.
Haringey held a Member Appeal Panel (three councillors not previously involved) on 12 January 2009, which rejected her appeal .
In both the Haringey Disciplinary panels: "the reasons given for her dismissal were the Secretary of State’s direction and a fundamental breach of trust and confidence".
Understandably there is no shortage of very high emotions and strong opinions about Sharon Shoesmith - both pro and anti. What's in short supply is calm dispassionate reflection. Her scapegoating not only blocks calm reflection but prevents further learning. Whether or not people agree with the Court of Appeal judges, their approach helps overcome that.
(Labour councillor Tottenham Hale)
-
-
"She comes over as cold and callous" - sounds like perfect management material.
-
-
I imagine that given the responsibility over children's lives and the limited budget you would need to make some pretty hard headed decisions.
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
The Shoesmith woman won her case because the people who sacked her did not follow proper procedures when doing so. She won on a technicality. That does not mean she should not have been sacked, or that she did not make grave mistakes. Only goes to show how much you need to have your ducks in a row when saking someone, or they will come back and bite you on the bum. Or Balls.
-
Permalink Reply by Mr Growbag on
-
She didn't "win on a technicality".
The substance of the entire case was about whether procedure had been correctly followed, both by the Secretary of State and the Council. Neither is currently ruled to have done so. May change if/when they appeal it up to the Supreme Court.
-
-
So that means she won on a technicality, as correct procedures were not followed when she was shown the door. That's exactly what I said!
-
-
If the people who fired me did not follow procedures to the letter then I would point this out to my legal team, it's a technicality, and I would win. Regardless of how much I actually deserved to be fired. This is what happened to the Shoesmith person. she did not win because the was brilliant at her job after all, but because the people who sacked her did not follow proper procedures when doing so.
-
-
Just because something is "procedural" does not make it a "technicality". Employment law cases are almost always about procedure. If someone has been dismissed entirely by the book, where's the dispute for the courts to resolve?
Winning on a technicality would be something like Haringey's lawyers forgetting to file a defence, allowing Shoesmith to win by default.
-
-
whatever. She won, not because she was right, but because someone f****d up when they sacked her. That's the beginning and end of it. So she's not cleared in terms of being "innocent" for lack of a better word, she still did a terrible job and got fired for it. But now, thanks to someone not doing the sacking correctly, this silly bint will be awarded a lot of money, money that could have been spent protecting the children she failed so miserably to look after. She should be ashamed of herself.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
