Coralie Helena Eaton v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 20^th January 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 convictions for speeding on 19^th March 2024 and 11^th October 2024, resulting in a combined 6 points being upon her driving licence. The Registrar deemed the offences serious, such that she was no longer fit and proper and had to be removed from the Register.

The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 9^th February 2025, the Appellant indicated she was incredibly remorseful for speeding on two occasions, but asked to be allowed to remain an ADI if possible. The Appellant indicates she has been an ADI for many years without issue. She is part of a team that assist those with particular difficulties to train to drive and as such is a person with extra responsibilities.

The Appellant indicates her age and suggests if she were to lose her registration finding work may be difficult for her. The financial consequences would be difficult too.

Character references were supplied providing clear details of the Appellant’s ADI skills.

The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the offences were serious, it called into question the Appellant’s suitability to be an ADI. Allowing her to remain on the Register after two such offences would send out the wrong message. Accordingly, the Appellant had to be removed.

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 56 pages.

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

The Appellant said the first offence took place travelling from a dual carriageway 40mph zone to a 20mph area. The Appellant said she was reducing her speed and went through a camera at 23mph. She said she couldn’t slow down any quicker due to traffic behind her. She said the road was part of one of the local driving test routes, and was a road she used regularly.

The second offence was on the same stretch of road, when she was found to be travelling at 24mph. Again she said traffic behind her made it difficult to slow down to the correct speed. She said she may also have been running late for a lesson. She did accept when challenged that she should simply have started to slow down earlier, being well aware of the road and the relevant speed limits.

The Appellant accepted that she couldn’t really explain why the second offence took place, when she had been given a clear warning from the first conviction. She didn’t seek to excuse either offence saying an ADI should have known better.

She indicated that she had been on a speed awareness course in February 2024 and accepted that should have prevented her being caught speeding again, let alone twice more.

She asked to be allowed to continue on the Register, apologising profusely for her actions.

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 was caught speeding on 19^th March 2024 and issued with a fixed penalty, plus points. Only 7 months later she received a further 3 points and a fixed penalty. It is extremely concerning that an ADI firstly should show such disregard for the rules of the road, and to have failed to bear in mind them on the second occasion. It would be hoped that the first offence would have been sufficient warning to the Appellant, particularly having completed a speed awareness course in the very near past.

The Registrar, and therefore the Tribunal, must bear in mind that ADIs are teaching individuals to comply with the law. It would be somewhat disingenuous for the Appellant to say we must all comply with the Rules when within such a short period of time she has not. The Tribunal comes to the view that allowing the Appellant to remain on the Register sends out the wrong message and undermines the faith the public could have in the name “approved” driving instructor. The Registrar had no option but to remove the Appellant, and the Tribunal endorses that decision.

The Tribunal accepted that the Appellant was remorseful and bitterly regretted her actions. The Tribunal bore that in mind but couldn’t look past the offending to say that the Appellant remained 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 necessary and proportionate.

The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect.