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 John McMullan on
-
Hooray!!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Good to see Justice taking her course. Balls's Soaraway Sun backed/inspired/induced rush to judgement was always going to be a ballsup. I'm just disappointed to hear a former Director of Education/Children's Services gush that she is "over the moon". Such eloquent expressions of superlunary relief might be acceptable from Giggsy after his next superinjunction.
-
-
And I see the Haringey legal department and the government's lawyers are unrepentant. Peasants.
-
Permalink Reply by Neville Collins on
-
I'm not a fan of Ms shoesmith's behaviour, but the fact was that she was sacked unfairly. Meanwhile, not a single Labour councillor responsible for the mistakes within childrens' services at the time have been punished.
This judgement will open the legal floodgates for other senior officers and front-line staff who have been dismissed by the council to consider taking similar action....
It would be in the public interest that the council stops wasting scarce taxpayers' money fighting the indefensible, and settle this and other cases out of court.
-
Permalink Reply by Mr Growbag on
-
Whilst there was no "punishment"/scapegoating of any Labour councillors, it's fair to say that two certainly did lose out over the whole sorry business: George Meehan and Liz Santry both stood down following the OFSTED report.
Interesting to consider whether this is likely to cause a "floodgates" effect. Doesn't seem that likely to me in this case. Council officers are not usually dismissed after a media witchhunt, Sun newspaper petition and direct intervention by the Secretary of State. It's purely because the circumstances surrounding Shoesmith's dismissal were so unusual (and rapid) that it was possible for her to bring the case for judicial review.
A settlement would indeed probably be cheaper, but I imagine that neither the government or HC wants to deal with the headlines.
-
-
If it hadn't been so high profile George might be the new mayor!
-
-
Taken from BBC website: Addressing speculation that she could be in line for more than £500,000 compensation, Ms Shoesmith said: "I haven't thought anything about compensation, chief in mind is winning this appeal and then supporting four other people who have also been sacked in social care," she said.
In her Guardian interview, she said she was "never in it for the money" and had "wanted the truth to be told".
I will be following this closely. I lost my job as deputy night editor of a certain left-ish newspaper website due to severe RSI, and couldn't use my right arm for 9 months. I won and was awarded £37,500, which covered lost earnings, which I thought that was fair compensation. So where is the justification in a potential payout of £500,000? I hope she doesn't go for this as it's an insult to all the children and families who have suffered as a result of failures within her department. If she does get awarded any compensation, I hope her morals prevail and she donates any compensation in full to a children's charity.
Nuff said.
-
-
Salary envy.
-
-
Not at all John. I should have also mentioned it's fair to receive compensation for lost earnings, legal fees etc. What I don't agree with is compensation levels that appear to be far in excess of losses and expenses actually incurred.
-
-
She was a chief executive and the manner of her sacking made her a scape goat as well. I would have expected her to be able to pull in AT LEAST £500,000 in salary for the next 10 years of her working life but now, I really think she'll be lucky to get half that. I think there should be a level of financial penalty for Ed Balls. Perhaps he should be forced to give Ms Shoesmith one of his homes.
Most compensation for sacking in the UK is around £30K which is the statutory maximum for constructive dismissal AND the most you can get tax free in a redundancy payout.
-
-
A penalty for Balls. Sounds somehow apt. Perhaps he just needs to be "put on the spot"...
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Thanks for giving the link to the Court of Appeal Judgment. It's worth reading carefully. All three judges had helpful things to say which would apply more widely.
In particular, the main judgment by Lord Justice Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, deals with issues about the case raised on this website. For example, paragraph 65 includes the comment that having:
". . . one individual with ultimate responsibility and accountability in relation to children’s services does not mean that that person is to be denied the protections that have long been accorded to responsible and accountable office-holders. Nor does the fact that the Secretary of State is not the employer of a DCS relieve him of the obligation to be fair."
In paragraph 65, he says:
"I find it a deeply unattractive proposition that the mere juxtaposition of a state of affairs and a person who is 'accountable' should mean that there is nothing that that person might say which could conceivably explain, excuse or mitigate her predicament. 'Accountability' is not synonymous with 'Heads must roll'.
I found paragraphs 134 and 125 especially interesting; they deal with the way Sharon Shoesmith was treated. The last sentence reads:
"Whatever her shortcomings may have been (and, I repeat, I cannot say), she was entitled to be treated lawfully and fairly and not simply and summarily scapegoated."
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
