Supreme Court refuses Education Secretary and Haringey permission to appeal in Shoesmith case
The Supreme Court has refused the Secretary of State for Education and the London Borough of Haringey permission to appeal in the Sharon Shoesmith case.
The judges ruled that the applications did “not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court at this time, bearing in mind that the case has already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal".
They also ordered the appellants to pay the costs of the application.
In June the Court of Appeal said the dismissal of the former Director of Children’s Services at Haringey was unlawful because she had not been given the opportunity to put her case before being sacked.
“We were unanimously of the view that Haringey’s procedures were tainted by unfairness,” the court said, overturning a High Court ruling that the decision to sack Shoesmith was taken in a fair way.
Lord Justice Maurice Kay, who gave the lead judgment, also said: “It is our task to adjudicate upon the application and fairness of procedures adopted by public authorities when legitimate causes for concern arise, as they plainly did in this case.
“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.”
The 11KBW Education Law Blog points out that “this is not the final word on the matter because the question of damages is still to be decided by the Administrative Court (if not agreed between the parties) and there are also other proceedings stayed pending the outcome of this case, including in the Employment Tribunal.”
A spokeswoman for Haringey said: “We are bitterly disappointed that our application to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal against the ruling that Sharon Shoesmith was unlawfully dismissed from her post has been refused.
“We believe we have acted properly throughout the process and stand by everything we have done. We now need to work through consequent steps with DfE to resolve the matter. We cannot say any more until that process is completed. In the meantime, our focus remains on ensuring that the sustained and significant improvements to children’s safeguarding services, as recently evidenced by inspectors, remain on course.”
A Department for Education spokeswoman said: “The Government is very disappointed to hear that permission for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has not been granted. The Government still believes it was right in principle for Sharon Shoesmith to be removed from her post as Director of Children’s Services (DCS).
“We believe that the Supreme Court should have heard this case as we believe there are questions of constitutional importance involved, beyond the specific question about whether Ed Balls should have had a meeting with Shoesmith before she was removed from her post as DCS.”
The spokeswoman said the government would reflect on what steps needed to be taken following the Supreme Court's decision.
Beachcroft, the law firm that advised Shoesmith on her claims, said it was pleased with the decision and would be considering its implications with her.
Philip Hoult
Further reading: The taint of unfairness
