Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Shoesmith in Court this week
Sacked Haringey Council children’s services director Sharon Shoesmith this week attends the judicial review proceedings which she initiated against the Council, Ofsted and children’s secretary Ed Balls.
Among other things, the proceedings contend that:
1) the Joint Area Review report by Ofsted was unlawful.
a. It was issued in disregard of the rules of natural justice and of the statutory arrangements made under s20(5) of the Children Act 2004.
b. It was published and submitted to the Secretary of State without first giving Ms Shoesmith any opportunity to correct and/or contradict the findings.
2) the purported directions made by the Secretary of State on 1 December 2008 were unlawful:
a. They were beyond the powers of the Secretary of State, as set out by s497A (4B) of the Education Act 1996
b. They were made in breach of the principles of natural justice. Ms Shoesmith was not given an opportunity to correct and/or contradict the basis on which the Secretary of State took action
c. The Secretary of State was influenced by media pressure
3) the Council acted in breach of its own procedures and in fundamental breach of natural justice
a. It failed to carry out any investigation or to give Ms Shoesmith an opportunity to consider and contradict the material (if any) which may have supported the conclusions in the Joint Area Review. This was important as external and internal material indicated that Ms Shoesmith was extremely capable and was in charge of a service externally assessed as being 'good'
b. It failed to grant Ms Shoesmith a meaningful appeal
c. The Council wrongly relied on the (unlawful) Joint Area Review and (unlawful) Directions by the Secretary of State
In addition to the judicial review proceedings, Employment Tribunal proceedings alleging unfair dismissal by the Council have been issued on behalf of Ms Shoesmith.
The case is due to be heard in the High Court in the Strand from Wednesday October 7. It's listed for three days.
Her barrister will begin presenting her case on Wednesday, so if you want to go along, that's probably the best day to go to hear her version of what happened. Also wise to get there early.
Among other things, the proceedings contend that:
1) the Joint Area Review report by Ofsted was unlawful.
a. It was issued in disregard of the rules of natural justice and of the statutory arrangements made under s20(5) of the Children Act 2004.
b. It was published and submitted to the Secretary of State without first giving Ms Shoesmith any opportunity to correct and/or contradict the findings.
2) the purported directions made by the Secretary of State on 1 December 2008 were unlawful:
a. They were beyond the powers of the Secretary of State, as set out by s497A (4B) of the Education Act 1996
b. They were made in breach of the principles of natural justice. Ms Shoesmith was not given an opportunity to correct and/or contradict the basis on which the Secretary of State took action
c. The Secretary of State was influenced by media pressure
3) the Council acted in breach of its own procedures and in fundamental breach of natural justice
a. It failed to carry out any investigation or to give Ms Shoesmith an opportunity to consider and contradict the material (if any) which may have supported the conclusions in the Joint Area Review. This was important as external and internal material indicated that Ms Shoesmith was extremely capable and was in charge of a service externally assessed as being 'good'
b. It failed to grant Ms Shoesmith a meaningful appeal
c. The Council wrongly relied on the (unlawful) Joint Area Review and (unlawful) Directions by the Secretary of State
In addition to the judicial review proceedings, Employment Tribunal proceedings alleging unfair dismissal by the Council have been issued on behalf of Ms Shoesmith.
The case is due to be heard in the High Court in the Strand from Wednesday October 7. It's listed for three days.
Her barrister will begin presenting her case on Wednesday, so if you want to go along, that's probably the best day to go to hear her version of what happened. Also wise to get there early.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Good luck to her. I hope she gets a fortune and gives most of it to some children's charity.
-
-
Possibly. It would be better if Ed Balls was found personally responsible and had to sell one of his houses.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Will failures at Birmingham get as much publicity as those at Haringey?
Quote from above link;
In February this year, Birmingham children’s services was placed under special measures by the government and ordered to work to an improvement plan. The decision followed the deaths since 2004 of at least 18 children in the city who were known to social workers, including toddler Toni-Anne Byfield who was shot after the council allowed her to visit her drug-dealer father.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Thanks for posting this Hugh. It sounds as though Shoesmith's case is more aimed at the Secretary of State rather than Haringey. Our local council may be in a tricky position because it seems they were backing Shoesmith up until a late juncture when they were decisively over-ruled by the Secretary of State. It'll be a field day for the lawyers. The brass neck of the woman is amazing and I for one will be astonished if she is successful in her claim.
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Good luck to her, Clive, I say. Sharon Shoesmith deserves her judicial appeal. Justice should not consist of Balls or any other Minister having recourse to a panic attack of 'justice' or 'morality' or 'save my skin' in response to the Soaraway Sin or the rest of the meedja. I trust that some in Haringey's ruling party or in my own union, the NUT, will remember their initial supportive stance.
-
Permalink Reply by John on
-
I too am an NUT member, and although I think Sharon Shoesmith made very real errors of judgement and practice it isn't right that a Labour minister should sack anyone (no matter the crime) on national television without due process; or that the mistakes Sharon made, erase from history the very excellent work she did on improving education in this borough. Let the courts decide whether she was right to be sacked or not, but I will always feel the manner of doing it was wrong, and it still won't rob from her the real achievements in education.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Perhaps, Clive, you might follow your own more usual practice by fairly considering her side of the case before finally making up your mind? Even if most of us can't get there, I'm sure the proceedings will be reported.
-
-
Alan do you have any views about the claim directed at the council of which you are a Member, i.e. Claim 3 "the Council acted in breach of its own procedures and in fundamental breach of natural justice"?
-
-
Come now, Clive! You already know my general view because I posted it
here on HoL. To restate: I believe local councils, elected councillors, and even Secretaries of State should follow employment law, and respect both the Rule of Law and the Principles of Natural Justice.
Sharon Shoesmith's case is about to be heard by a High Court judge who has been given the relevant papers by all parties; and who'll spend several days hearing the legal arguments. She or he will then consider the case and some time in the near future will deliver a written and no doubt carefully reasoned judgement.
If I was a betting man . . . . but I'm not.
-
-
I am able to give more fulsome backing to the council: I believe that Haringey Council invariably does the right thing ... after having exhausted every other alternative! (apologies to Sir Winston).
-
-
Clive, I didn't sit on the Disciplinary Panel which sacked Sharon Shoesmith. I didn't sit on the Member (councillor) Appeal Panel which confirmed that decision. I don't know what evidence they read or heard.
A High Court judge is about to hear submissions and then come to a decision on some perhaps complex points of law. So the issue isn't about giving full (or even 'fulsome') support to anyone. This isn't a football match where we shout for our team.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
