Shanaz Begum v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 18^th February 2025 to remove her name from the Register, as she was no longer fit and proper to be on the same.

The Registrar’s reasons for refusal, in summary, were that the Appellant had accrued 6 points for using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a car on 22^nd October 2024. The Registrar took the view the offending was serious and allowing her to remain on the Register would undermine confidence in it, so determined the Appellant must be removed.

The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 2^nd March 2025, indicates that she picked her phone up whilst travelling very slowly having just witnessed her niece involved in an accident. She describes grabbing her phone in a moment of panic, but not using it. A police officer at the scene saw the same and reported her. The Appellant indicates she has been an instructor for 12 years and had never received any complaints or criticisms.

Character references were provided indicating the Appellant is a well thought of ADI.

The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the offence was serious, and her non-reporting of the same to the Registrar was unhelpful. Being responsible for teaching often young people came with particular responsibilities and abiding by the rules of the road was central to them. Here using a mobile phone, even in the circumstances could not be overlooked, and removal was appropriate. The Registrar must send out a clear message that such offending will not be tolerated.

The case was listed for oral hearing, and heard via the CVP system.

The Appellant attended and was unrepresented.

The Respondent was represented by Andrew Heard of the DVSA Appeals team.

The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 31 pages.

Mr Heard said the Respondent’s position was as per the Response.

The Appellant said she had told the Registrar of the offence, but it must have been lost in Xmas post issues.

She described seeing her relative involved in a collision with a taxi. The Appellant knew her niece’s children were likely to be in the car; the Appellant said in panic she had grabbed her phone. She described that her phone was in her bag in the passenger footwell and she reached into the bag, whilst the car was coming to a stop. She said a police officer happened to be in the area monitoring school traffic and saw her holding the phone. She was not using the phone when in the car, but after she got out she made various calls to the school and others. It was when she went to leave the area an officer asked her to pull over and reported her for the offence.

She said she had never committed any offences in her life. She indicated that she was well aware of the risks of using phones in the car, having had a family friend lose a relative due to a driver using their phone.

She said that she has the highest pass rate for her driving franchise company, and had won awards for her ADI skills. She described loving her job and relished the fact that she was viewed as having a very positive character.

She indicated losing her registration would have serious implications for her. She was going through a separation and losing her job would be very difficult for her.

Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the Applicant to be and continue to be a “fit and proper person” to have his name on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors – see s. 125 (3) and s. 127 (3) (e) Road Traffic Act 1988 (Footnote: ¹).

The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. The burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory criteria rests with the Registrar.

In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 (Footnote: ²), the Court of Appeal described the “fit and proper person” condition thus:

“..the condition is not simply that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be a driving instructor, it is that he is a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the register. Registration carries with it an official seal of approval…the maintenance of public confidence in the register is important. For that purpose the Registrar must be in a position to carry out his function of scrutiny effectively, including consideration of the implications of any convictions of an applicant or a registered ADI. This is why there are stringent disclosure requirements”.

An appeal to this Tribunal against the Registrar’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing i.e. the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and take a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as is considered appropriate to the Registrar’s reasons (Footnote: ³) as the Registrar is the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process.

The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it.

Here the Appellant picked up her phone in panic. She had just witnessed an accident involving a family member, and the Tribunal accepted this would have been traumatic. However, the Appellant was able to, and thought it right to, pick up her phone whilst her car was moving and hold it in her hand. Whilst the Tribunal accepts the emotional issues at play at the time, there was no reason to pick up the phone whilst driving. It was a clear breach of the law. An instructor must know that such behaviour cannot be tolerated.

Allowing an instructor who has such an offence on their antecedents to remain on the Register sends out the wrong message. An instructor must be able to say to pupils you must not do this, without fear that the pupil could say, “well you did.” The hypocrisy of such a stance undermines the whole Register.

The Tribunal comes to the view that the Registrar had no option but to remove the Appellant. The Registrar must ensure that the public has faith in the Register and the only way to do so is to ensure that only those suitable to instruct are on it. To allow the Appellant to appear on the Register would be to condone the offending.

Looking at the circumstances here the Tribunal comes to the view that the Appellant is no longer fit and proper.

The Tribunal gave careful consideration to the effect of removal, but when balanced against the offending came to the clear view that removal was still necessary.

The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect.