TT is correct. Much discussion of this issue has been obfuscated by sensationalism and misleading reporting. There seems to be a perception that the judges exonerated Sharon Shoesmith of responsibility. They did not and made no judgment on the matter. As one of the judges stated:
"This is not to say that I consider Ms Shoesmith to be blameless or that I have a view as to the extent of her or anyone else’s blameworthiness. That is not the business of this court."
The judges were required to decide if the proper procedures had been followed before she was sacked. It is hard to argue against their learned conclusion that they were not. As the judge noted:
"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."
The title of your post, 'Justice for baby Peter or Sharon Shoesmith?' sets up a false dichotomy: we should be glad to live in a country where the rule of law applies, resulting in justice for baby Peter and (not 'or') Sharon Shoesmith.