Robert Verkaik: A legal battle that could run for years to come
Comment
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.This is not the last we have heard from Sharon Shoesmith and her campaign to prove she was made a scapegoat over the tragic death of Baby Peter.
Expect an announcement very soon that the former head of children's services at Haringey Council will take her case to the Court of Appeal or resume her claim for unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal.
Yesterday's joint declaration of victory by Ed Balls and Ofsted over their handling of the case may yet prove to be a hollow one.
Mr Justice Foskett, the judge hearing the failed judicial review case, couldn't have been more encouraging of Ms Shoesmith's efforts to take her unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal.
He said the advantage of using the tribunal route was that the merits of her case could be considered in the "broadest sense" without Ms Shoesmith having to worry about paying the other side's costs if she lost.
Her lawyers would have also been buoyed by the judge's assessment of Haringey's treatment of Ms Shoesmith, when he said: "The overall impression gained of Haringey's approach was that the sooner Ms Shoesmith was dismissed with no compensation, the better, and that everyone could move on once that happened."
He said that it "created the appearance of an unfair process". Neither did the judge think that Mr Balls had been wise to rule out the prospect of compensation.
The case could drag on for years. But such are the feelings of revulsion over the failures leading to the death of Baby Peter that whatever the outcome of her legal case, Ms Shoesmith will never a get a fair hearing in the court of public opinion.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments