Sumit Sharma v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 19^th April 2024 to remove his name from the Register, as he 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 speeding offences, one on 17^th December 2022 and a second on 1^st December 2023. The Registrar took the view the offending was serious and allowing the Appellant 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 30^th April 2024, indicates the second offence was not committed by him, but rather by his wife. He indicates that he accepted the offence, but later realised that it was his wife that was driving, and she should have the points attached to her licence not him. As a result he argues that notionally having only 3 points on his licence he should not lose his registration.

The Appellant provided a body of considerable emails sent to a variety of people/bodies seeking assistance to have the relevant 3 points removed from his licence. Unfortunately, the Appellant sent letters in the main to bodies that have no responsibility/jurisdiction over such matters and who were therefore unable to assist him.

The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the combined effect of the convictions were of such note the Registrar took the view that he was no longer fit and proper and must be removed from the Register.

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

The Appellant did not attend. He had previously indicated that he wished the hearing to be postponed until early in 2026, as he was abroad and was assisting a partner who needed surgeries. No further details were provided. The Tribunal contacted the Appellant today and an international type dial tone was heard. During the telephone call the Appellant reiterated that he was abroad and was assisting another, but no further details were given.

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

The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 65 pages. A GRC5 seeking postponement of the hearing was also made available to the Tribunal and considered with care. As indicated the Appellant sought a lengthy delay of the proceedings, but provided no further materials to support the same.

The Tribunal asked the Respondent for its view whether a postponement should be allowed. Mr Heard indicated if there were materials to corroborate the postponement application it could be considered and would probably not be contested. If however there was no materials to support the postponement, bearing in mind the decision challenged was from April 2024, the application would be contested.

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

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.

A late application to postpone the hearing was received by the Tribunal. No details have been provided of the surgeries required, why the Appellant is abroad, where he is, why he has to stay with his partner, what recovery times might be relevant or anything really. The overriding objective for all cases is that they are dealt with expeditiously but of course fairly. Here the delay sought would result in a determination being made two years after the decision appealed against was reached. The Tribunal came to the view that such a delay was simply too long and a determination had to be reached.

The Tribunal was careful to look at the issues here, and conscious of the Respondent’s understandable and reasonable stance that without evidence a postponement was opposed, came to the view that a decision on the papers was required.

The Tribunal was also conscious of the fact that a delay of the magnitude suggested meant that the Appellant’s driving licence status changed in that some of the points on his licence would be removed. Whilst the Tribunal heard no evidence on this issue, there remained the possibility that there was a scheme in place to manipulate the situation such that the Appellant was in a more favourable position. A decision was taken many months ago and in the interests of fairness to all sides a determination was now required. Accordingly, bearing in mind the Tribunal Rules, giving due regard to all of the information, the Tribunal looked at this case on the materials provided.

Here the Appellant has “accepted” exceeding the speed limit twice. In actual fact he now maintains it is only once, and he has by his own mistake accepted points on his wife’s behalf. He argues it is unfair to tarnish him with the consequences of driving that was not his. The Tribunal was a little sceptical how such an acceptance could follow, and was somewhat concerned that something else was at play.

The Tribunal considered what evidence the Appellant could give on this issue, and reflected that in reality it could only be him saying it was not me. Whilst such an assertion would have to be given due consideration there was little detriment to the Appellant in him not being here on that basis.

The Tribunal gave anxious consideration to the Appellant’s stance, but firstly felt compelled to work on the basis that the Appellant had voluntarily accepted a conviction and that remained recorded against him. Acceptance of a criminal act is always a telling factor anyone to consider. Secondly, on the evidence provided there was simply not sufficient material to say that the conviction was wrongly recorded. The Appellant saying it wasn’t him was simply not enough. The same would apply even if he was here. The Tribunal had to balance the risk that the Appellant was not being truthful now, having realised the consequences of his admission, against the materials, but didn’t feel that there was anywhere enough to find that the conviction was incorrectly recorded and/or should be ignored.

Accordingly the Tribunal considered the case on the basis that the Appellant had 6 points on his licence from 2 separate offences. ADIs are expected to uphold the rules of the road and here the Appellant has not.

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 send out the wrong message and condone the offending. An outsider looking at the situation would wonder how someone that can’t follow the rules of the road is being trusted to instruct others of the importance of motoring laws. (The Tribunal would also find if required that an outsider would be concerned that an ADI was negligent enough to accept points for another was teaching, bearing in mind the need to be accurate and honest in all of an ADIs dealings.)

Further, the Tribunal considered that whatever the Appellant’s position, he has 6 points recorded against him. An outsider looking at him being on the Register would not be able to ascertain what the Appellant’s stance was about 3 of the points. The outsider would simply look and see that someone with 6 points recorded against them was on the Register. By allowing someone in that situation to remain on the Register would send out the wrong message of what “approved” means in the context of an ADI.

Looking at the circumstances here the Tribunal comes to the view that the Registrar was right, the Appellant is not fit and proper to be on the Register. Accordingly, his appeal fails.

The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect.