BJB v Office of the Children's Guardian

The applicant, BJB, sought a stay of a decision by the Office of the Children's Guardian to refuse to issue a clearance under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012. BJB argued that the refusal was flawed and sought an interim stay pending the determination of the review application. The court was required to determine whether there were sufficient risk assessment triggers to grant the stay and what factors should be considered when making such a decision. The applicant contended that the refusal was unjust and that the Children's Guardian had failed to consider all relevant information and had acted irrationally. The court needed to consider the statutory framework and the principles governing the exercise of discretion in these circumstances.

The court held that the decision to refuse clearance was not irrational or unjust, and that the Children's Guardian had considered all relevant factors in making the decision. The court also found that the risk assessment triggers were not sufficient to warrant a stay of the decision. The court noted that the Children's Guardian had a broad discretion in making such decisions and that the court should not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it was clearly unjust or irrational. The court further held that the factors to be considered in deciding whether to grant a stay were those set out in the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997.

The application for a stay order was dismissed, and the refusal of clearance remained in place. The court held that the decision to refuse clearance was not irrational or unjust, and that the risk assessment triggers were not sufficient to warrant a stay. The court also noted that the Children's Guardian had a broad discretion in making such decisions and that the court should not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it was clearly unjust or irrational. The court further held that the factors to be considered in deciding whether to grant a stay were those set out in the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was irrational or unjust, and that the Children's Guardian had considered all relevant factors in making the decision. The court also held that the risk assessment triggers were not sufficient to warrant a stay of the decision.