Meirion Harrison v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Registrar”) made on 11 September 2024 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register”) on the ground that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). This is because he had a fixed penalty dated 18 May 2024 for breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle, mobile telephones and so on (CU80) resulting in 6 penalty points.

The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The parties joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.

The Appellant lodged an appeal on form GRC1 dated 26 September 2024. In summary he made the following points:

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 20 June 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that the Appellant’s driving licence is endorsed with 6 penalty points, and an ADI is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. The Registrar does not believe that the Appellant has displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety that he would expect to see from a professional ADI.

The Appellant did not provide a Reply.

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 – see sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”). The Registrar has the burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit (section 131(3)). The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions (in accordance with R. (Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31).

In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808, the Court of Appeal described the “fit and proper person” condition as follows: “..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…It seems to me that 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.” (paragraph 30).

We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 28 numbered pages.

We heard submissions from the Appellant at the hearing. He stated that the mobile phone was not being used at the time of the incident; he has hands free capability for taking calls so had no need to be holding it. He admitted the offence. The Appellant said that the footage (which was not before the Tribunal, save for some still photographs at page 23 of the bundle) was captured by a member of the public’s dashcam and sent to police as part of Operation Snap, leading to his prosecution. The still images in the bundle show the phone being held in his right hand, apparently in front of his face, when his right hand was not on the wheel. He said that the footage shows that his eyes never left the road ahead, the incident occurred in a very quiet street when there was no pupil in the car and his speed was no more than 10mph. He said that the phone was not being used and could have been another object such as a bottle of water or vape and there would have been no repercussion.

The Appellant stated that at the time of the incident, his mother was gravely ill, passing away 18 days later, and his mind was wandering between lessons, which could be why he had the phone in his hand. Although he had accepted responsibility, he disagreed that simply touching or holding the phone was sufficient to make out the offence, because he was not using it at the time. He contended that if it was a bottle of water or a vape there would be other actions which were required. He accepted there had been a lapse in concentration.

On 5 August 2024, the Appellant emailed the Registrar to inform him that he had just had 6 penalty points added to his licence for a CU80 offence.

Following this notification, the Registrar’s staff obtained a printout of the DVLA Swansea database, which confirmed that on 18 May 2024 he had committed the offence of breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle, mobile phones and so on and, having accepted the fixed penalty notice offence, his driving licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points.

On 13 August 2024, the Registrar emailed the Appellant giving him written notice that he was considering removing his name from the Register on the grounds that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name retained in it. The Appellant was given 28 days to make representations.

The Appellant replied on 17 August 2024. He said that whereas it is obvious from the footage that he was indeed holding a mobile at the time, the phone was at no point being used, although he cannot offer an explanation for why it was in his hand. He was extremely sorry and accepted the offence. He said that he was not making or receiving a call or message at that time and was alone in the car. The location of the offence was a very quiet dead-end street with little or no traffic and he was travelling at a very low speed with the road ahead receiving his full attention. He also said he had had no negative feedback during his time as an instructor and had no previous convictions of this sort. He was concerned that he would not find employment if removed from the Register because of his age.

The Registrar gave notice on 11 September 2024 that he had decided to remove the Appellant from the Register.

If an ADI’s name is allowed to be put on or remain on the Register when they have demonstrated behaviours which are relevant to fitness, this will diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public’s confidence in the Register. This includes behaviour relating to driving.

ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs adhere to the highest standards of motoring, which they themselves should be teaching to their pupils. Teaching people of all ages to drive safely, carefully, and competently is a professional vocation requiring a significant degree of responsibility. Such a demanding task should only be entrusted to those with high personal and professional standards and who themselves have demonstrated a keen regard for road safety and compliance with the law.

The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, and that those who are on it understand their responsibilities and can show they not only know the rules but follow them. What the Appellant did may not seem to be a serious offence, but the law treats it very seriously. It is essential that ADIs follow the law that they are supposed to be teaching to often young and impressionable pupils. We are aware that the Registrar consistently views six points on a driving licence as a serious matter which means someone is not a fit and proper person.

We do have sympathy for the Appellant’s position. He has made one serious driving mistake which has affected his ability to pursue a career as an ADI while he has six points on his licence. We accept that he was dealing with a difficult situation at the time of the offence. But he was fully aware of the right thing to do and instead chose to continue driving while holding his phone. We have considered all of the arguments made by the Appellant. However, we do not find that there are any exceptional circumstances which would justify allowing the Appellant to remain on the Register after committing an offence of this nature. We did not consider that the Appellant’s arguments demonstrate that he understood the gravity of the offence on the public perception of ADIs. We were also concerned that he disagreed with the fact of the offence being made out, as it does not appear that he understands the offence is a strict liability one where holding or touching the phone is sufficient to establish culpability. A mobile phone is a continuous communication device and thus distinguishable from other objects such as a water bottle.

We find on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. In all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant from the Register as he was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal.