Sharon Shoesmith: a lesson in procedural fairness

Sharon Shoesmith, the former director of children's services at Haringey Council who was sacked following the death of baby P, a child under the watch of the service, has won an appeal in her unfair dismissal case at the Court of Appeal.  This ruling is enormously damaging for Haringey Council. The council's reputation is already in tatters following the media frenzy around the death of Baby P, and their kneejerk reaction of apportioning blame and unceremoniously sacking Ms Shoesmith, while at the time may have taken the heat off them by giving the media a scapegoat to focus on, has now come back to haunt them. 

This is a civil case, not a criminal one, and it's not the  place of the court to decide whether Sharon Shoesmith was at fault, partially or wholly to blame for the death of Baby P.  What is in under examination here is the way that she was treated in her dismissal from her job.  In his judgement, Lord Justice Maurice Kay said: “Whatever her shortcomings may have been, she was entitled to be treated lawfully and fairly and not simply and summarily scapegoated.”

Procedural fairness is not a tick-box exercise: it's a basic legal foundation which is intended to ensure that the principles of natural justice are adhered to.  The old adage of 'innocent until proven guilty' seems too often to be thrown out the window in high-profile cases, when organisations find themselves under scrutiny and nominate a fall guy to be the focus of the blame.  No matter what a person has done, or is alleged to have done, no matter how obvious it may seem that they are at fault, it is always necessary for the performance of justice to give them the opportunity to defend themselves and give their side of the story.  Our society wouldn't dream of convicting a murderer without giving them a fair trial, even if there were 100 witnesses pointing to them and saying they were guilty.  So why would we sack someone accused of misconduct without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves?  Not only is this the right thing to do in terms of allowing person their basic human rights, it also makes sound business sense.  Only by a full, fair and impartial investigation into where things went wrong - which means hearing all sides of the story - can an organisation really get to problems and begin to set about fixing them.

Ms Shoesmith has caused an outrage in the press by stating that she doesn't 'do blame'.  The media interprets this as her trying to shrug off any responsibility for what went wrong.  But not doing blame is different than not doing accountability.  It is entirely right that people in a position of power should be held accountable for what happens on their watch, but they are also human beings and need to be treated with respect and fairness, even when they make mistakes.  Blame is in fact anathema to accountability; it makes people afraid to challenge others, afraid to admit mistakes and quick to pass the buck.  It means that the same mistakes get made - and hidden - over and over again.  The procedural fairness test is not onerous: simply give people a fair hearing.  Let them know what they are accused of, let them be accompanied, let them defend themselves.  Fail to do so, and you could find you are the one defending your decisions and actions in a court of law.