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 DavidJ on
-
No the judge does not think it is cobblers at all, point 24 from 'remarks';
"In a nutshell, I have not been satisfied that the procedures at Haringey gave the appearance of fairness. Comments were made on behalf of the Council in the immediate aftermath of the Secretary of State’s decision on 1 December that gave the appearance that the outcome of any disciplinary process was a foregone conclusion and that, not merely would the Claimant be dismissed, but that she would be dismissed without compensation. I recognise that there were many people calling for that to happen at the time and doubtless many people still hold the view that that is the appropriate decision. They are, of course, entitled to their opinion, but it may well be an opinion not based on a full appreciation of the true background and the legal issues. There is, therefore, another side to that argument and, as I have indicated, the legal position is difficult. There is the wider concern of who will undertake the role of DCS if someone can be removed in these circumstances without a proper and an obviously fair process. That could potentially impact on the whole structure of the child safeguarding arrangements throughout the country which everyone, whatever their views about this particular case, must regard as extremely important. As I observe in the judgment, unless those who become involved in these procedures take particular care to act, and be seen to act, with scrupulous fairness “fair process according to law will simply be subverted by the political or media pressures of the moment.” That cannot be so."
-
Permalink Reply by Alan wolfson on
-
Point taken , but lighten up David. Shoesmith - Cobblers. It's just a ditty.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
