Learning from tragedy

Have we learned from the tragedy of seventeen-month-old Peter Connelly (widely known as Baby P) who was found dead in his cot on 3 August 2007? During his short life, Peter was subjected to continuous brutality resulting in extensive bruising and broken bones.

When Peter was just four months old, his mother’s boyfriend moved in. Bruises were seen on his face the following month. Child protection issues were raised. A former social worker raised concerns with the Department of Health over perceived failings in Haringey.

In March 2007 inspectors met Haringey officials to discuss the concerns raised. The following month Peter was admitted to hospital with bruises, two black eyes and swelling on the left side of his head.

Two months later after seeing further marks on Peter’s face a social worker sent Peter to hospital and 12 areas of bruises and scratches were found.

In June, the boyfriend’s brother and his girlfriend moved in. A month later further injuries to Peter were missed by a social worker after others had smeared him with chocolate to hide the damaged areas. Peter was examined at a child development clinic on 1 August but was found dead two days later.

The boyfriend, his brother and Peter’s mother were all later convicted and imprisoned for the parts they played in Peter’s maltreatment and death.

Then the blame game started. Whilst Downing Street dodged accusations of buck-passing, Children’s Minister Ed Balls ordered an inquiry into Haringey’s role.

In December 2008, Sharon Shoesmith, the Director of Haringey Children’s Services heard in a live press conference on television that she had been sacked from her role which had been created after the murder of Victoria Climbie more than ten years before. Social workers were also suspended by their regulator and later dismissed.

The social workers and their Director have since been the subject of intense public attention and scrutiny by the media. Indeed, at least one of the social workers felt it necessary to move home because of the effect it was having upon her health.

Sharon Shoesmith contested her sacking arguing that there had been a flagrant breach of natural justice. Allowing her appeal, a unanimous Court of Appeal found that she had not been afforded the opportunity to put her case and was thus denied the elementary fairness which the law required.

Later Ms Shoesmith compromised her claim against Haringey, the details of which were hidden in a confidentiality agreement by the parties.

It is now reported that Haringey’s accounts show a pay-out from the public purse of nearly £680,000 in lieu of salary, compensation and employer pension contributions.
So, once again, Ms Shoesmith – who it is right to say, before her public vilification was highly regarded for her social work – comes under the spotlight.

But before we rush to point the finger once again, let us remember that the people who killed that innocent child were sent to prison for their crime. No social worker laid a hand on that poor boy. They failed to spot what was going on, and that is what makes us so angry.

We should instead be asking what we have learned from this appalling tragedy. Is Haringey now managing its social workers properly and are they being held to account? Is Haringey sure that the systems they have in place will prevent an episode like this ever occurring again?