The Guardian newspaper is the first to carry a substantive report following the release today of papers relating to Ofsted’s late disclosure of documents in Sharon Shoesmith’s action against Haringey, Ofsted and Ed Balls – see Baby P report on Sharon Shoesmith ‘was beefed up to remove her’.

It does not appear that they have yet had the chance actually to read the newly-released documents, and most of the report is based on what Shoesmith’s lawyers have said about them.

The primary focus is on the alleged existence of several versions of the report of which Ofsted originally said that they “no longer existed or could not be located” before emails emerged ‘by chance’ after the judge had heard evidence but before he gave his judgment. It is alleged that Ed Balls “interfered” with the drafting process despite Ofsted’s commitment to objective impartiality.

The organisational defects of Ofsted and the personal defects of Childrens’ Minister Ed Balls are, of course, interesting and important, but are neither my main topic nor things which really need proving.  Given the volume of papers now passed to the media, it will be a while before we get to the bottom of the procedural failures in the litigation and hear of the documents themselves as opposed to Shoesmiths’ lawyers’ view about them. It seems unlikely that their account is inaccurate, but there is no substitute for seeing the original documents – which is, of course, what this story is all about.

Home