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 Clive Carter on
-
I'm sure you're right Alan about it probably turning on complex points of law (mainly about the extent of rights and powers of the Secretary of State). But I would have thought you might be more confident about the council's own panel processes?
Having seen one or two Judicial Reviews, I can be sure that the London Borough of Haringey will have legal representation. It's not a football match, but by Jove it is every inch as adversarial. Whoever is the barrister for Haringey will have no doubt that they are not neutral, but are on one side and are engaged in a duel with the other side, i.e. Counsel for Shoesmith.
The council have previously stated they will resist Shoesmith's case vigorously, or words to that effect. I will watch the case with interest, not least because the council was backing Shoesmith right up until the end, as I recall, something that I expect her lawyer might exploit.
It has to be said that, whatever the verdict after three days, there is little in this matter anywhere that reflects credit on the council.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Clive, you seem to be forgetting that this was hardly normal circumstances! As far as I know, it was the first time any councillors' appeal panel in Haringey had to deal with - in effect - the public sacking of a Director by a Secretary of State.
I also suspect this may have been a 'first' for any local authority in the country and that new legal ground was being broken. We'll find out when the Judicial Review decision is handed down.
Maybe the difference between us is that you've already made your mind up and won't be happy if the judge - the 'ref' - gives a decision you disapprove of.
-
-
I support the line of the council's counsel in court in this matter, but I'm under no illusion that Haringey's position is one of conviction or principle. The council was forced to do the right thing by a Labour Minister.
The shock for Ms Shoesmith and others was that anyone should be made to be accountable and responsible and that rarely happens at this council.
I sat in court this afternoon watching proceedings. Shoesmith was there. I reflected that up and down the land there are ordinary folk made redundant every day or sacked for less than Shoesmith, and they accept it. Because of her toughness and possibly because of her former six-figure salary, unlike the many, she is able to take her grievances to the High Court and argue the toss.
More information is emerging. Today's Sun newspaper reports that Shoesmith was awarded a pay rise for good performance days after the investigation into her department was completed. The Chief Executive (Ita O'donovan) is said to have praised her as a heroine and the council leader (Cllr. Meehan) told her "I will never sack you".
Thus, the real, internal attitude of the council is likely to be at variance with the barrister's submissions. Does anyone believe lessons have been learnt over the torture and death of Baby P, as has been claimed? I am not motivated by distaste for Ms Shoesmith, but by concern for future vulnerable souls who may depend for their lives on the At Risk Register.
If Ms Shoesmith's case against Ofsted is successful she could be awarded the equivalent of a medium-sized lottery win. Baby Peter Connelly was on the child protection register and was seen 60 times by social workers. -
-
Permalink Reply by Stuart on
-
I'm impressed that anyone can know what the "right" thing to do was after sitting through an afternoon on the first day. We need more judges like that. That's what's wrong with this country. Darn judges wasting time insisting on all the 'evidence'. In fact, maybe we should just do away with the judges full stop and turn it over to the public vote, like Strictly Come Dancing, only let's call it Strictly Come Mob Justice. Rebekah Wade, Glenn Beck and Jeremey Clarkson could be the judges.
-
-
I was also impressed that Ed Balls knew what the right thing to do was.
But Ed Balls MP is not just "anyone", he is the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and as such, has overall accountability. Someone had to take responsibility which he did, about 10 months ago. Much of the time the Government looks the other way with dysfunctional Haringey, but now and again it's obliged to act.
The evidence presented yesterday was on behalf of Shoesmith; much of the balance of evidence will be on behalf of Ofsted ... but IMO the whole thing is an indulgence and selfish abuse of the legal system, made possible, because she can afford to do it.
Underlying much of this is the inability of Haringey (notwithstanding their current legal posture) to accept responsibility for failure. It seems that accountability is not a word understood in the council; individuals are rarely responsible: as Ms Santry said in the council chamber, there were collective committee decisions. Most jobs do involve personal responsibility; surgeons for example, don't have the luxury of a committee comfort zone when in the operating theatre. How foreign is this concept to the council?
One suspects that this immensely tough woman would go on arguing the toss until the cows come home. Shoesmith will not be reappointed: she’s seeking a huge amount of cash in connection with her sacking over her role, or lack of one, in the torture and killing of a baby. Peter was thought of as just another statistic.
Haringey – and not least Childrens Services Childrens Services – will only improve when council jobs do not take precedence over public service and people at a senior level face up to their responsibilities.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
You know what Clive? In another 2 years there will have been another baby P and not even Wonder Woman can do anything to stop it. Do you know why young babies look so much like their fathers? It is because they evolved that way. The ones that did not look like their fathers did not get the opportunity to have their own children. What on earth can someone in Ms Shoesmith's ex-position do about that?
Accountability and responsibility are NOT the same thing. My manager is accountable for my actions and I am responsible for them. Surgeons make mistakes a lot more than you might think, often there are no consequences but when there are, it's in pretty much everyone's interest to not make a mountain out of a molehill. This is why we don't catch bad doctors until they have a string of failures to their names.
When you refer to her as an "immensely tough woman" I detect a hint of misogyny, just saying.
Ms Shoesmith will never work again, Fred Goodwin does not need to but probably could.
Haringey's childrens services will NEVER be prefect. You could have Buddha in charge and people would still torture young children to death.
-
Permalink Reply by james walsh on
-
With respect (this is my second draught so i have thought about this post) - I can't understand what points are being made here.
I get the impression that a dead baby is being used as a political football.
-
-
John I think you're overlooking some of the basic known facts of this case:
a) Peter Connelly was on the Child Protection Register
b) The baby was visited 60 (sixty) times
Child torture and killing will remain mercifully infrequent. Where a baby or child is genuinely unknown to Social Services, a council cannot be held responsible, but the converse is also true. I hope you are not complacent and uncaring about another death on the At Risk Register, as Ms Shoesmith appeared to be?
You're right about accountability and responsibility being different things: Haringey seems rarely to own up to either of them. If a surgeon makes a mistake, its hard to hide behind a committee. Everyone knows who is wielding the scalpel and that acts as quite as incentive to do the job right.
Ms Shoesmith seems to be pretty thick-skinned, otherwise we might have heard an apology from her, rather than statistics. I think the best thing Ms Shoesmith could do would be to relocate. She has skills in education. I think Children's Services was added later to her primary responsibilty for Education. This additional burden didn't seem to attract much attention or funding – she had backing from teachers, but Children remained the Cinderella Service.
The presence of perfection in Haringey Childrens service is unobtainable. There shouldn't be a need for it, but there probably always will be. But seeking the absence of gross incompetence is desirable, realistic and obtainable, but requires a different culture.
-
-
Clive, Sharon Shoesmith this "pretty thick-skinned" and "immensely tough woman" was pushed nearly to the point of breakdown and to thoughts of suicide. Some other staff involved had to go into hiding. Staff who were not involved in any way were physically threatened; or named, pictured and abused on internet sites.
As for the "cabinet" councillors, when it later became clear there had been systemic problems within Haringey Children's Services, Cllrs George Meehan and Liz Santry did accept their responsibility, resigned their posts and became "backbenchers".
The issue is not whether there should be accountability and responsibility. There must be both. That much emerged crystal clear from the Laming Inquiry following the murder of Victoria Climbié. But neither mean abandoning proper process; evidence; and the principles of Natural Justice.
-
-
Alan you’re commendably loyal to your colleagues. It is true that these two councillors did resign from the Cabinet (only). And they both employed the words accountability and responsibility in their resignation statements.
Cllr. Meehan resigned on Monday 1 December 2008, having kept silent on the Baby P scandal up until 18 November 2008. He said then that his council's apology was "heartfelt and unreserved".
Was Cllr Meehan not also council leader at the time of the Victoria Climbié enquiry?
Both he and his colleague have still not resigned as councillors.
Its important to recognise that the resignations from the Executive came about only after weeks of media attention and the impression was given that both were clinging on for as long as possible. Does this not put a question mark over the sincerity of the resignations and the accompanying statements?
The most constructive thing that could happen now is a public enquiry. Some have in fact pointed to aspects of the Lord Laming enquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié, as having not helped the cause of child protection, specifically, encouraging a "tick-box" culture.
It would be best for everyone concerned, in the long run, if everything was reviewed in an open public enquiry. There remain serious unanswered questions. I think everyone is agreed that we don't want to see this happen again.
-
-
But we will. No matter how unfairly Ms Shoesmith is treated, no matter how petrified of similar treatment her replacement is, this will happen again.
-
-
What do you think a Child Protection Register should aim to achieve, John?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
