Blame lay with Ed Balls for rushing his fences too eagerly and Haringey for following him over them too blindly
In its headline-making judgment on the Sharon Shoesmith dismissal case yesterday, the court of appeal did no more and no less than the senior courts are supposed to do. It reviewed the findings of the lower courts. It interpreted the laws that parliament has made. And it righted two wrongs against Ms Shoesmith. The wrongs were separately committed by the former children's secretary Ed Balls and then by Haringey council in peremptorily sacking the former head of the borough's children's services department after Ofsted's report following the Baby P case in 2008. The court's verdict was extremely strong on both counts. The Department for Education now intends to appeal to the supreme court. Haringey says it will do the same. That is their right. Whether, when they reflect on the court of appeal's unanimous judgment, that is a worthwhile use of scarce public money is another matter.
The court of appeal was extremely clear where blame lay for the way Ms Shoesmith was dismissed. It lay with Mr Balls for rushing his fences too eagerly and Haringey for following him over them too blindly. As soon as the horrific Baby P criminal case ended in November 2008, Mr Balls got Ofsted to conduct an urgent report on the state of the obviously compromised child safeguarding arrangements in Haringey. That was sensible, given the seriousness of the case and Haringey's reputation, though it was inevitably a bit of a rushed job. But, three weeks later, as soon as he received Ofsted's critical report, Mr Balls threw judgment to the winds. He called a press conference at which he publicly dismissed Ms Shoesmith. Haringey immediately suspended her and then, a few days later, fired her without compensation or payment in lieu of notice.
Very few people who have studied the Baby P case in detail will be in much doubt that Ms Shoesmith bears a very serious share of responsibility for the Baby P case failings and for the unacceptable state of child services in her borough at the time. If proper procedures had been followed it is unlikely she would have remained long in her post or have had any case against her dismissal. But Mr Balls, with Haringey in his wake, should not have blundered in the way that they reacted to the scandals. Ms Shoesmith was entitled to be treated in a procedurally proper way. Mr Balls brushed all that aside. He was too ready to do the bidding of the media, which wanted Ms Shoesmith's head immediately on a platter. He put his political convenience above his ministerial responsibility. Haringey followed where Mr Balls led. Incredibly, their cavalier approach to law has turned Ms Shoesmith into a victim. If Mr Balls had still been in office, yesterday's ruling should have forced his resignation. Instead, he insisted that he would have handled the case in exactly the same way if he had his time over again. This is not just foolish but worrying.
The list of those who bear some responsibility at various stages of the Baby P saga is a depressingly long one. Never forget, though, that the three people who killed him – his mother, her lover and their lodger – are the real criminals. Public revulsion at the killing, whipped up further by a media which constantly stereotypes and denigrates social workers, helped to turn Ms Shoesmith into a surrogate villain. Too weak to resist it, the local authority and the secretary of state colluded in the process. Both of them buckled in the face of the hue and cry. It was the job of the courts to make sure that the rule of law did not do the same. That is what the court of appeal did yesterday. "Whatever [Ms Shoesmith's] shortcomings may have been," its judgment said, "she was entitled to be treated lawfully and fairly and not simply and summarily scapegoated." She was indeed. These were strong, brave words. Not many come out of the Baby P story with any credit. Too late in the day for a dead child, the judges of the court of appeal are some of the rare exceptions.