Trevor Morton v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal is brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 131(1)(c) Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the Act"). It relates to a decision made by the Respondent ("the Registrar") dated 19 February 2025 ("the Decision") to remove his name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Register") on the grounds that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person ("FPP").

What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and our view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of our reasoning. The absence of a reference by us to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered.

A person may only provide paid driving instruction if his name is on the Register (section 123(1) of the Act) or if he holds a licence by section 129(1) of the Act and in accordance with The Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005. Sections 128(1) and 128(2)(e) of the Act provide that the Registrar may remove a person's name from the Register if satisfied that he has ceased to be a FPP.

The FPP test was considered in Harris -v- Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 whereRichards LJ held at para 30:-

The Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency ("DVSA") has issued Guidance ("the Guidance") which an ADI is required to declare they have read when applying to become an ADI. It states for example that there are some situations where it would be unlikely an ADI would be deemed to be a FPP and allowed to remain on the Register and these include incurring both motoring and non-motoring offences. As regards motoring offences the Guidance says:-

As regards the FPP test the Guidance says:-

The Guidance also says "You must write to the ADI Registrar within 7 days if you get a caution or conviction. This includes:..any motoring or non-motoring offence, including penalty points."

Additionally a code of practice for ADIs ("the Code") has been agreed between the DVSA and the National Associations Strategic Partnership, a steering group for approved driving instructor associations. Whilst it is voluntary the Guidance states that "It is a framework within which all instructors should operate."This includes that the instructor agrees to "at all times comply with legislative requirements..."

Also of note is that when applying for the renewal of his registration on 8 November 2022 the Appellant declared that he understood that "...I must tell the ADI Registrar within 7 days if:...I'm convicted of any offence including motoring offences fixed penalties and non motoring offences."

Section 131(1) of the Act provides that "A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar...(c)to remove his name from the register...may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal."

Section 131 (3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make such order:-

In considering the appeal the Tribunal must give appropriate weight to the Registrar's view. The Court of Appeal in Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 (26 January 2011) held that the answer to " How much weight was the district judge entitled to give to the decision of the licensing authority?" was:-

When making its decision, 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 the relevant legislation with making such decisions. It is not the role of the Tribunal to carry out a procedural review of the Registrar's decision-making process but it does need to consider all the circumstances. Our decision is reached on the balance of probabilities.

We had a bundle of 28 pdf pages and supplementary pages. We heard from the Appellant and Mr Russell for the Registrar.

In summary:-

On 19 February 2025 the Registrar notified the Appellant of the Decision namely to remove his name from the Register but by section 128(7) of the Act directed that the Decision would not take immediate effect.

This appeal, of 18 March 2025, is against the Decision. The outcome sought is to allow the appeal and set aside the decision. The Registrar has provided a response dated 21 August 2025.

There is no dispute that speeding offences occurred and the points were incurred and that he did not tell the Registrar about them as required.

In his letter of 23 January 2025 the Appellant said that non-disclosure of the points was an oversight which he deeply regretted. In the appeal he said that he did not realise he needed to report the points. He referred to this issue being caused by "ignorance not wilful neglect."

As regards the speeding offences the Appellant told us about the two incidents that led to the penalty points and also revealed, when questioned, that he had previously been on a speed awareness course.

As regards the June 2024 incident he told us that he was driving on a road that had recently been changed to one with a 20 mph speed limit down from 30 mph. The same was the case for the November 2024 incident where he was on a dual carriageway that had recently been reduced to a limit of 20 mph. He confirmed that he was aware of the June points before committing the November offence.

In his letter of 23 January 2025 the Appellant said that he had been "...struggling to adjust to a reduced speed limit in my local area which changed from 30mph to 20mph. On these occasions I was travelling at 24mph and 26mph respectively..."

In his reasons for appeal he also said "...These were areas where recent speed limit changes had been introduced...Some zones had active enforcement, while others did not, creating uncertainty."

He said that the speeding was brief, involved only very "minor speed variations" and he did not exceed the limits intentionally. As soon as he realised his error he reduced his speed. He was not reckless or dangerous. In his appeal he also said that:-

Other points made by the Appellant included:-

The Appellant produced a number of character references which we noted. These included:-

The Registrar's concern is that the Appellant has 6 penalty points for speeding and did not tell the Registrar about them as required. The Registrar explained that for example in 2020 excessive speed contributed to 202 deaths, 1300 serious injuries and 1386 minor accidents. He said he cannot condone these offences as the person who is required to maintain the Register and it would be offensive to other ADIs to do so.

The Registrar said that account is taken of a person's character, behaviour and standard of conduct and that an ADI is expected to have standards of driving behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. He said:-

Our role is defined by the Act and in the relevant legal authorities such as Harris and Hope and Glory. Our starting point is therefore to consider and give due regard to the view of and the Decision made by the Registrar.

We accept the Registrar's position as set out in this appeal in particular noting the harm caused by excessive speed. ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary drivers. The public expects the Registrar to work to ensure that ADIs are FPP in the wider Harris sense and has the right to expect ADIs to adhere to the highest standards of motoring. It is right for the Registrar to be concerned about a person with 6 points for speeding offences potentially being on the Register. We also noted the content of the Guidance and the Code on speeding and the FPP status.

The Guidance also refers to the need for penalty points to be notified to the Registrar and that when the Appellant made his application for renewal in November 2022 in the form he stated that he understood this.

As a result of the above, and noting the Appellant's long experience, we found it difficult to accept that the failure to notify was caused by ignorance of the need to do so. However this was the Appellant's position and we did accept it but in doing so had cause to doubt the Appellant's attention to the details of the responsibilities of an ADI.

While the focus of the Decision was about the 2 specific speeding offences and the relevant 6 points we also kept in mind that prior to the first set of points the Appellant had also been on a speed awareness course due again to speeding. In his appeal he referred to his "clean legal and professional record " and said:-

We accept that these words are accurate notwithstanding the offence that led to the speed awareness course. However the fact that the Appellant had been on a course makes the failure to adhere to the speed limit in June 2024 and then again in November 2024 more surprising.

As regards the offences they were not challenged in court but were accepted with the resultant points. While the speed reductions were relatively new there was no suggestion that the signage was missing or inaccurate. We would expect an ADI to be able to comply with changing speed limits.

We noted what the Appellant said about his honesty, the lessons learnt and his commitment to continued professional development.

We were sympathetic to the personal issues raised such as the financial impact if not able to be an ADI. This is something we would expect would be of great concern to almost all in this situation. However in our view, while we review all the circumstances and have taken it into account, we do not consider the likely financial impact to be a particularly relevant consideration for a decision about whether an ADI is a FPP. Again the need to maintain the integrity of and public trust in the Register is likely always to be greater than the needs of an individual appellant and we gave this point very little weight.

We accept that the Appellant has been a successful ADI for many years. He was supported by a wide range of helpful references all of which spoke highly of his capabilities.

The Appellant was caught speeding three times and despite taking the awareness course for the first one was caught again in relatively quick succession in June and November 2024 and for the same reason. He did not disclose this to the Registrar.

Despite his many years as an ADI and the content of the references because of the above the Appellant has not persuaded us that the Registrar’s decision was wrong and accordingly the Appeal is dismissed.