Advertisement

Criticism Over Shoesmith Compensation Bill

Haringey Council and former children's secretary Ed Balls have been criticised for the way they sacked Sharon Shoesmith - after it emerged she could be in line for a £1m payout.

The former head of Haringey children's services today won recognition at the Court of Appeal that she was unfairly sacked following the Baby P tragedy.

A leading employment lawyer said she could now be in line for the substantial compensation if the court's decision is not overturned.

Richard Wilson, leader of the opposition on Haringey Council, said it "beggars belief" that the "failings by Haringey and Ed Balls could mean we are faced with a multi-million pound bill."

"Sacking someone live in a press conference is always open to risk and the judgement today said that if (Ed Balls) had gone about it in a better way, Sharon Shoesmith would not have had a case.

"Ultimately the buck stops with the leadership of the council who also failed to handle this case properly."

He added: "The residents of Haringey will be shocked and angry to discover that as a result of the failings of Haringey Council and Ed Balls, in the way they went about sacking Sharon Shoesmith, that they could be faced with millions of pounds of legal bills and compensation.

"That is money that could have been spent on local services to protect children that will now be wasted."

Judges at the Court of Appeal ruled today that Ms Shoesmith was "denied the elementary fairness which the law requires".

Speaking outside court, she said: "I'm over the moon. Absolutely thrilled."

The Department of Education has said it will now apply to the Supreme Court - the UK's highest court - in an attempt to overturn the decision.

If the decision stands, her payout could run into six figures.

Philip Henson, head of employment at City law firm Bargate Murray, said Ms Shoesmith was likely to receive compensation "approaching, or hitting, the £1m mark, taking into consideration reinstatement of her pension rights."

Ms Shoesmith was sacked from her £130,000-a-year job after an Ofsted report exposed her department's failings following the death of Baby P , later known as Peter Connolly.

The child was 17 months old when he died in August 2007 after months of physical abuse at the hands of his mother, her lover and their lodger.

Three judges allowed Ms Shoesmith's challenge against a High Court ruling that cleared Mr Balls and the local authority of acting unlawfully when she was fired.

However, her appeal against regulator Ofsted was dismissed.

Ms Shoesmith's lawyers argued she was the victim of "a flagrant breach of natural justice" and she had lost her post because of a "media witchhunt" and political pressure.

Outside court, she said it was not possible for her to go back to work in Haringey, but added: "I hope to carry on with my career with children in some capacity."

"Having spent a lifetime protecting, caring (for) and educating children, my sorrow about the death of Peter Connelly in Haringey when I was director is something which will stay with me for the rest of my life.

"But as the judges have said, making a 'public sacrifice' of an individual will not prevent further tragedies."

The appeal judges were told of the "catastrophic" personal impact the death of Baby P had on Ms Shoesmith.

Her lawyer said she had suffered from suicidal thoughts and had been unable to find work since December 2008.

He told judges that Ms Shoesmith had heard Mr Balls announce live on TV that he was removing her from her post with "immediate effect".

The lawyer for the Government defended Mr Balls and said urgent action had to be taken after "ghastly findings" in the Ofsted report.

After Ms Shoesmith's appeal win, Mr Balls told Sky News he had "no regrets" about his decision.

Ms Shoesmith argued that her sacking without compensation was so legally flawed as to be null and void.

She asked the court to rule that she remained entitled to her full salary and pension from Haringey from the date of her dismissal until today.

The judges ruled that Mr Balls "did not afford Ms Shoesmith the opportunity to put her case".

"In short, she was denied the elementary fairness which the law requires," the ruling said.