Haringey and Sharon Shoesmith reach settlement over her dismissal

The London Borough of Haringey and its former Director of Children’s Services, Sharon Shoesmith, have settled her case, it has been confirmed.

A spokeswoman for the council said: “Following the decision of the Court of Appeal in favour of Ms Shoesmith, and the Court’s direction that the parties seek to resolve the issue of compensation, the London Borough of Haringey and Ms Shoesmith have reached a settlement in this case.

She added: “The terms of the settlement are confidential. We are unable to comment further on this matter.”

Shoesmith was sacked in the aftermath of the death of a 17-month-old boy, Peter Connelly, in 2007.

Three people – Baby Peter’s mother, her boyfriend and his brother – were subsequently jailed.

Shoesmith said the first she heard of her dismissal from her statutory role as Director of Children’s Services was when Ed Balls, the then Education Secretary, announced on television that he had issued a direction replacing her. She then challenged her dismissal by way of judicial review as well as at the Employment Tribunal.

In June 2011 the Court of Appeal ruled that Shoesmith’s dismissal was unlawful on public law grounds 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.”

In August 2011 the Supreme Court refused the Education Secretary and Haringey permission to appeal.

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.

According to a report by the BBC’s Newsnight, a government source claimed that the settlement could cost Haringey up to £600,000. However, it said Shoesmith was likely to receive a much smaller sum.