BHA v Children's Guardian

In the case of BHA v Children's Guardian, the applicant, BHA, sought an enabling order to work with children after being disqualified from holding a working with children clearance. The applicant argued that they had taken appropriate steps to address the issues leading to their disqualification, and therefore, they should be granted an enabling order to resume working with children. The Children's Guardian opposed the application, asserting that the applicant had not demonstrated that they no longer posed a risk to children's safety.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had discharged the onus of proving that they did not pose a risk to the safety of children, thereby warranting the grant of an enabling order. The court considered the statutory framework and relevant case law to determine the applicable legal principles. The court held that the applicant had not met the required standard of proof to overcome the presumption that they posed a risk to the safety of children.

The court's reasoning hinged on the statutory presumption that a disqualified applicant poses a risk to children's safety. The applicant was required to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that they no longer posed such a risk. The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to discharge this onus. Consequently, the application for an enabling order was refused. The court's decision was based on the applicant's failure to meet the necessary standard of proof, and the presumption of risk remained unrebutted.

The final order of the court was to refuse the application for an enabling order, meaning that the applicant could not work with children until they had successfully addressed the underlying issues leading to their disqualification.