Ms Shoesmith was sacked in December 2008.

The former Head of Children’s Services at Haringey Council has lost a case in which she claimed she had been unfairly sacked after the death of Baby Peter.

Sharon Shoesmith was fired following a damning report by Ofsted inspectors after the death of Baby Peter at the hands of his mother and her boyfriend.

The High Court rejected her claim that she was unlawfully sacked.

The judgement has been welcomed by Ofsted and the Children’s Secretary Ed Balls, but Ms Shoesmith might appeal.

Peter Connelly died at the age of 17 months after enduring months of abuse, despite being seen by health and social services professionals 60 times in the last eight months of his life.

Social workers, health teams and the police had all known he was at risk.

The former Head of Children’s Services at the North London council had claimed she was made a scapegoat and unlawfully sacked after a media outcry.

Children’s Secretary, Ed Balls: “I would make the same decision again”. But at the High Court, Mr Justice Foskett said the decision to remove Ms Shoesmith could “not be impugned on the grounds of unfairness”.

He said: “I have rejected as ‘too simplistic’ the suggestion that the Secretary of State’s decision to commission the Ofsted inspection was driven by ‘party politics’, as indeed I have also rejected the suggestion that he was improperly influenced in making the decision he did on 1 December 2008 by a petition presented to him a few days previously by a national newspaper.”

Ms Shoesmith lost her job in December 2008, a week after Ofsted published an emergency report (called a ‘Joint Area Review’) into child protection in Haringey.

Children’s Secretary Ed Balls had sent the inspectors in to the local authority after Peter’s mother and boyfriend were convicted of “causing or allowing” his death.

Baby Peter died from repeated abuse, despite 60 visits from authorities.

Ms Shoesmith had taken action against Mr Balls, Ofsted and Haringey Council.

She had claimed that Ofsted had changed it’s report to make it more critical of her personally; that was denied by the inspectorate.

Mr Justice Foskett said it had been his role to judge whether procedures had been followed fairly – and not to rule on the merits of decisions made or on whether the Ofsted report had been unfairly strengthened during the final stages.

He said he dismissed Sharon Shoesmith’s High Court challenge with a “lurking sense of unease”.

“I cannot think that any party will truly look back at how matters were handled in this case with complete satisfaction,” he added.

Mr Balls and Ofsted did not emerge unscathed in the judgement and Haringey Council was criticised.

Mr Justice Foskett expressed concern that Mr Balls was “persuaded to offer his opinion” that Ms Shoesmith should be dismissed.

Angela Harrison, BBC News social affairs correspondent

ANALYSIS

This case was a degree removed from the tragedy of Peter Connelly. The lawyers weren’t arguing about how a small boy could die despite being well known to the authorities or about how well Sharon Shoesmith managed Haringey children’s services. This was an inquiry into an inquiry.

Could the Secretary of State and Ofsted make cool, calm decisions in the face of public fury? The judge says yes, but with ‘a lurking sense of unease’.

The judgement suggests the fairness of the system was creaking under the pressure. The inspection by Ofsted was ‘rushed’, Sharon Shoesmith had no right to reply. The council seemed to have reached a foregone conclusion when sacking her.

As Mr Justice Foskett puts it, no-one will look back at how the case was handled with a ‘complete sense of satisfaction’. The implication is that lessons must be learnt.

But he said he could find “no sustainable basis” for the suggestion that there was “political or other improper interference in the Ofsted inspection, or the report-writing process by, or on behalf, of the Secretary of State”.

There were “strong grounds” for thinking that Ms Shoesmith and others subjected to the Ofsted inspection did not have a fair opportunity to explain their position - but that “did not invalidate what Ofsted did”.

The judge expressed concern over Haringey’s decision to dismiss her, but said it was for an employment tribunal to decide whether she had been treated unfairly by the council.

He said: “In a nutshell, I have not been satisfied the procedures at Haringey gave the appearance of fairness”.

After the judgement, Mr Balls said “It is clear from the judgement that my motivations were the right ones and I acted in a proper and right way.”

“The urgent Ofsted inspection, which I commissioned following the end of the trial, found very serious failings in children’s services in Haringey,” he said.

“The fact that children were at risk meant it was right for me to take swift, decisive action when presented with the evidence. Faced with the same situation - and on the basis of the information put before me - I would arrive at the same decision.”

The ruling was also welcomed by Ofsted’s Chief Inspector Christine Gilbert.

“I am pleased that the judge’s conclusion is clear: Ofsted’s inspection process has been vindicated,” she said.

The case was heard by Mr Justice Foskett QC

“Ofsted takes it’s role in inspecting the protection arrangements for vulnerable children very seriously.

“We carried out a robust inspection, came to a sound conclusion based on the evidence and acted fairly.

“The inspection team did a professional and rigorous job and we are pleased that they have been vindicated through the intense scrutiny of the court process.”

Ms Shoesmith’s lawyers said they were “disappointed” by the judgement and would see if there were grounds for an appeal.

In a statement, the London-based Beachcroft Partnership said: “We are disappointed that, despite the serious criticisms made by the judge of Ofsted, the Secretary of State and Haringey Council, the judge has not upheld Sharon’s claim for judicial review.

“We nevertheless welcome the finding that Haringey acted unfairly in dismissing Sharon.”

Ms Shoesmith had also taken her case to an employment tribunal, but this was halted pending the outcome of this judicial review and could now be resumed.

Tom Symonds, UK affairs correspondent

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8639496.stm

Cleaners, cooks and care assistants were among the 5000 female council staff who have won their case for equal pay at an employment tribunal.

All employed by Birmingham City Council, they may be owed £30 million in back-pay because bonuses were paid only to male counterparts, according to their unions. However, solicitors said the pay-out could be up to £600 million.

Birmingham Councillor Alan Rudge, Cabinet Member for Equalities and Human Resources, said that it was too early to determine financial implications and that consideration was being given as to whether there were grounds for appeal on any aspects of the decision.

“The issue that was considered by the employment tribunal relates to the old pay and grading structure — in particular the outdated bonus systems,” he said. “In 2007 we took positive action to remove the inappropriate bonus schemes and implemented a revised pay and grading structure, which falls within the Equal Opportunity Commission’s equality guidelines and was endorsed through an independent external audit.”

Paul Doran of Stefan Cross Solicitors said that the tribunal had found that senior managers at the council had been aware of the problem since as early as 2000 but had not done anything about it.

Croner News, 28 April, 2010

Nearly 350 new panel members are to be appointed to sit on employment tribunals across Great Britain following a major recruitment drive by the Tribunals Service.

The Lord Chancellor has approved appointments for 341 new panel members (293 in England and Wales, and 48 in Scotland) who will, he said, provide the workplace experience of disciplinary issues and dispute resolution upon which the Tribunal depends.

Appointments are being made to all regions in England and Wales, and to offices in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen in Scotland.

This followed a large recruitment campaign during which nearly 4000 applications were received – far more than in any judicial recruitment campaign in recent years.

Justice Minister Bridget Prentice said: “Employment tribunals are a cornerstone of the civil justice system, and these new members will play a vital role in helping deliver justice for employers and employees alike.”

Kevin Sadler, Chief Executive of the Tribunals Service said that the more difficult economic conditions of the last year had meant that employment tribunals have been under pressure.

However, he continued, they had coped well with the higher workload and had disposed of a significantly increased number of cases.

Panel members are required to have experience of workplace issues and to have dealt with concerns ranging from grievances and disciplinary matters through to appeal proceedings and dismissals.

They must also have an understanding of employment and discrimination law, combined with knowledge of how organisations manage employment relationships.

The new members will help to ensure each case is fair and unbiased, Mr Sadler concluded, by providing added insight into employee/employer relations, helping the tribunal to come to it’s decision.

Croner News, 15 April 2010

A mentally ill PR manager who was sacked by VisitScotland has vowed to appeal after losing his disability discrimination case.

Richard Saville-Smith took the tourism body to an industrial tribunal after losing his job in 2008.

VisitScotland insisted he was fired because of the quality of his work, rather than because he was bipolor.

The tribunal agreed with that claim, but made several criticisms of VisitScotland in it’s judgement.

Mr Saville-Smith, from Edinburgh, was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1992, and was prescribed medicine three years later, which kept the condition under control.

But just seven weeks after being appointed as Public Relations Manager for the Homecoming Scotland event in August 2008, he suffered a bipolar episode which resulted in him needing psychiatric care.

When he returned to work less than a month later, his employers began disciplinary proceedings against him for “incompetence” which resulted in 48-year-old Mr Saville-Smith losing his job in November 2008.

VisitScotland’s position throughout the resulting employment tribunal was that Mr Saville-Smith’s colleagues had raised serious concerns about his ability to do his job, and in particular his ability to work with other members of the Homecoming Scotland team, before he became ill.

In it’s written judgement which was published this week, the tribunal found VisitScotland had not breached disability discrimination laws – although one member of the panel said he believed it was a “clear case” of discrimination.

However, the tribunal said Mr Saville-Smith would have had a case for unfair dismissal if he had been employed by VisitScotland for at least a year. It also criticised parts of the evidence given to it by some senior members of VisitScotland staff, and said Mr Saville-Smith had been badly treated during his brief time working for the agency.

The judgement stated: “The fact that the majority of the tribunal consider that the respondents (VisitScotland) have not breached the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act does not mean that the majority believed that the respondents acted properly and in accordance with good human resources processes.”

Mr Saville-Smith told BBC Scotland he was “definitely” going to appeal the ruling. He said: “The judgement is bizarre - it basically means that if three or four senior managers say ‘we were going to sack him before he got ill’ then it is OK.

“Only 20% of people with serious mental illness have jobs but 80% say they want to work.

“I had a mental illness for 13 years but worked perfectly well - employers just need to get over it.”

A spokesman for VisitScotland said: “As we anticipated all along, VisitScotland has been vindicated by the employment tribunal’s decision and we have been found not to have discriminated against Mr Saville-Smith.

“We are pleased that the employment tribunal has found in our favour as we have always known that Mr Saville-Smith did not have his employment terminated for any reason related to his disability.”

Friday, 30 April 2010, BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8654032.stm

A City executive who claimed her boss hired a hitman to kill her has lost a £4m sex discrimination claim.

She was dismissed from her job in February 2009.

A tribunal ruled Jordan Wimmer, 29, had not been a “persuasive” witness.

She had claims for sex and disability discrimination and unfair constructive dismissal dismissed by the central London employment tribunal.

Ms Wimmer had accused Mark Lowe of bringing female escorts to meetings and discussing sexual fantasies with her at hedge fund firm Nomos Capital.

A written judgment by the tribunal concluded: “We did not find the claimant a persuasive witness.”

The multi-millionaire financier had denied allegations that he hired a hitman to kill her.

Ms Wimmer, 29, of Chelsea, West London, who earned £577,000 a year, told the tribunal she thought her boss wanted to kill her.

Mr Lowe denied the allegations against him at the hearing.

Mr Lowe accepted at the hearing that he did refer to Ms Wimmer as a “dumb blonde” but said the comment was a joke.

In it’s ruling, the tribunal said Ms Wimmer “would have us believe that she had to push down the feelings of disgust and self-loathing” engendered by Mr Lowe’s alleged sexual harassment of her and “get on with her job”.

Ms Wimmer further alleged she had been exhausted by the “astronomical” hours she had been working and made “anxious” by the delay in paying her the balance of her bonus.

“Her dramatic account is simply not corroborated by the overwhelming totality of the contemporaneous documents… and the attempts made by the claimant (Ms Wimmer) during the course of the hearing to corroborate her claims of sexual harassment… put bluntly, backfired,” the reserved judgment said.

3 May 2010, BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8658301.stm