The Shoesmith judgment – Court of Appeal

Points of interest for public lawyers

There has been considerable media coverage of the Court of Appeal's decision to uphold Mrs Shoesmith's appeal on many of the points of challenge against the Secretary of State for Education and Haringey Council. This coverage is completely understandable given the tragic background to the case which arose from decisions made by the then Secretary of State, Ed Balls MP, and Haringey Council following the criminal convictions of three people over the death of a child.

This update does not look at the employment law aspects of the case or the factual background. Instead the focus is on the four key areas where certain fundamental principles of public law were considered in detail by the Court.

Why is this of interest?

Often public law judgments consider one or possibly two principles in detail. It is particularly useful to have a Court of Appeal judgment, from a formidable panel of the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justices Maurice Kay and Stanley Burnton, which gives an in-depth analysis of four key principles. In addition, on one of the key principles there is a difference of view on the reasoning between Kay LJ, who delivered the lead judgment, and the other two judges. This update gives an at a glance overview of the four issues considered by the Court.

Read more about the four issues

Lawyers