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 Hugh on
-
Appalling - certainly enough to make one wonder about the rightness of the decision to come down on Shoesmith quite so hard.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Indeed. I think Clive will be choking on his Weetbix with the size of this payout.
-
-
Permalink Reply by james walsh on
-
This is not directed at anyone in particular.
I see that much has been done to remedy the injustices to shoesmith. I wonder if a tenth of what has been done/spent here had gone toward the little boy peters known circumstances we would not be discussing this.
Shoesmith is able to bring all in her power to defend herself but did/could not defend that tiny little boy peter.
Alan Stanton will attest that i actually openly and publicly predicted a tragedy such as this when i was living in that area of tottenham. I said to Alan "will it take a babys death for something to be done here ?' I am not ashamed to say i still cry.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
James, the torture and murder of Peter Connelly has moved a lot of people and you are very far from alone. Peter suffered more than injustice, which is what Sharon Shoesmith is claiming. One of the most galling things about the Shoesmith case is that there seems to be no genuine contrition over bureaucratic failings in the department for which she was responsible. The remarkable Womens Hour extended interview with Shoesmith made that pretty clear.
If Sharon Shoesmith wins a lottery-sized pay-out for alleged injustice to her, what does that say about society's relative worth of a baby's life and the bureaucrat, previously highly paid by us, amongst other things to safeguard that life?
I'm not sure if the situation for society's most vulnerable has changed for the better, mainly because we know it didn't post Victoria Climbié.
.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Clive, my post was about the role of Ofsted. Which today apologised to a High Court judge for its "serious and deeply regrettable" mistake in failing to disclose potential evidence.
Of course Ofsted’s repeated failures don’t excuse anyone else. But Ofsted is supposed to be the national Children’s Services “watchdog” – a key agency in ensuring that systems are in place to protect children. So today's news is deeply dismaying. And not just for the judge, who ordered Ofsted to give him "chapter and verse" on why this occurred.
Clive, you are entitled to your views about Sharon Shoesmith and anyone else who failed Peter Connelly. But repetition adds nothing.
Nor does referring to “lottery-size payouts”. What size is that? £45 million? £1 million? Tonight the National Lottery site boasts that: “Ms B from Aberdeenshire has just won £4 !”
Of course, your implication is that any money Sharon Shoesmith receives is unearned and undeserved . A roll of the ball; a matter of chance. Nothing to do with years of paying into a pension fund. No connection with due process and following employment law. Tell us, do you advocate setting aside due process? Tearing down employment laws? Is it to be retribution above everything?
-
-
Sharon Shoesmith's lawyer looks like he has a very good case. I hope Ed Balls is given a job he deserves, water boy at Norwich City FC is probably more his thing.
-
-
Here's a Link to the BBC website coverage of this story on 1 April 2010.
Plainly, the more material comes out, the worse it looks for OFSTED. Which does not, of course, remove responsibility from anyone else.
Meanwhile, the Guardian's website report - see John's link above - ends by suggesting this is a "judicious review".
(Labour councillor & candidate Tottenham Hale)
-
-
On the BBC website: Great Ormond Street report on Baby P 'not disclosed' .
Yet another astonishing piece of evidence finally emerges.
_________________________________________
Labour councillor & candidate Tottenham Hale ward
-
-
THE High Court decision that Shoesmith loses her appeal against dismissal must come as a huge relief to Haringey Council, which had previously backed her to the hilt. The last thing this council needed right in front of an election would have been the press going ballistic over a minor lottery win pay-out to this former Director of Children's Services, with Haringey once again linked to the Baby P torture and killing. It had already led to Cllr. Meehan's resignation as leader (but not as a councillor).
According to the Guardian article a top Whitehall official ... had demanded "clear attribution of responsibility". The phrase is often meaningless and incomprehensible to this council.
Where does Haringey get them from? I sincerely hope that the council culture of secrecy, coercion and cover-up, over which the arrogant and largely unrepentant Shoesmith presided in respect of Childrens Services, will be reformed. Will it take another child's death on the council's Child Protection Register? I believe it is time that vulnerable children's lives are put ahead of council staff careers.
-
-
For anyone interested, the written judgement is online here, together with a summary and some remarks - all written by the judge - Mr Justice Foskett.
The full judgement is 212 pages long. I haven't yet finished reading it. But it's both astonishing and valuable to have these documents publicly, immediately and freely available and downloadable.
I do hope this will further increase pressure on some of our secretive councillors and bureaucrats to have the maximum amount of information publicly available and online. (Subject to data protection and privacy laws.)
Sunshine and fresh air.
(Labour councillor & candidate Tottenham Hale ward.)
-
Permalink Reply by DavidJ on
-
Thank you for that link Alan. From a quick look it seems the judge is pointing Shoesmith to an Employment tribunal as the right place for dealing with the issue of unfair dismissal. He clearly seems to suggest that there are strong grounds there.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan wolfson on
-
Sharon Shoesmith went to court at enormous cost and fought and lost. She tried to claim her name had been smeared. The Judge appeared to think it was cobblers.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
