Yasar Khan v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 30^th October 2024 to remove his name from the Register.

The Registrar’s reasons for removal, in summary, were that the Appellant had been convicted of a section 20 Grievous Bodily Harm offence which resulted in an 18-month suspended prison sentence. 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 21^st November 2024, indicates that whilst he accepts the conviction, he asserts that it is a “highly unfortunate, but one-off incident which was occasioned as an act of self-defence…it is not a reflection of my professional ability, and that furthermore, particularly learning from the mistakes in this case, I am a fit and proper person to hold an ADI licence.” He indicates that there have never been any complaints about his ADI status.

The Appellant indicates that he was initially charged with a section 18 offence, but the jury convicted him of the lesser offence. He indicated he did not tell the Registrar about this matter at the time as his driving school said he didn’t need to. The incident the Appellant asserted involved a violent member of the community who caused difficulties for the Appellant in his chicken shop business premises.

The Appellant provided a good deal of character evidence to support his contention that he was fit and proper. He also provided some materials relevant to the offence he was convicted of, albeit none of the prosecution materials were provided. A Pre-Sentence Report was provided where it was stated the Appellant had said, “…I got scared and that’s why I ended up hitting him. I said that I chased him out of the shop, repeatedly hitting him, trying to chase him away from my business and my colleagues…I know I took things too far and regret my behaviour…I didn’t know I had hurt him so badly….I’m ashamed for what I have done and know I’m to blame for my actions and I should have known better than to react so violently.”

The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the Appellant holds a licence until February 2027. The Registrar considered the Appellant’s conviction and, it being such a serious matter, came to the view that the Appellant could no longer be viewed as being fit and proper and so had to be removed from the Register.

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

The Appellant attended and was represented by Ms Brookfield.

The Respondent was represented by Darren Russell of the DVSA Appeals team.

The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 52 pages.

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

Ms Brookfield said that the Appellant’s wanted the Tribunal to take a fresh independent view of the assault position and he wished to argue that he had realised what had happened was wrong, he has learnt from it, he had developed fresh skills and was clear that such a situation would never happen again.

The Appellant said that circumstances of the assault were unique, he was clearly acting in self-defence as witnesses had testified. He described setting up a “chicken shop” and a local individual caused issues. He asserted that the individual, Joe, threatened the Appellant and he was in fear of his life and so he reacted in that context. He accepted using a metal pipe causing serious bodily injury to Joe’s head. He said in trying to get Joe out of the shop and to get him to go away, but Joe wouldn’t. He stressed he felt he had no other choices. He described that he had called the police and had tried to de-escalate the situation, all to no avail.

The Appellant indicated he had undergone 40 hours of safe-guarding training to assist him to manage risk. He had learnt ways of reacting differently. As a result of this he now has had far more training than most ADIs and felt he was therefore in a better place.

He described that putting him and his family through all this had led to him learning a lot. He apologised to the victim and his family, accepting what he did was wrong.

He described how now he was calm and collected when making decisions, applying the skills he had learnt. He asserted that the Tribunal could be sure that he would never act in an equivalent way again.

The Appellant indicated that he never had any complaints against him and had no history of behaving in anything other than an exemplary way. He said he always followed the ADI code of conduct and always will. He stressed that this one incident doesn’t reflect his true character. He maintained it will never happen again.

He did describe how he received a caution in 2008 for “being a bit loud” complaining about a car. He had sought to return a car, which he had purchased, and in doing so the police were called, and he was cautioned. He couldn’t recall the exact offence for which he was cautioned.

The Appellant stressed he was sorry and believed he had been punished already for his actions. He had lost a business, had incurred significant financial costs and other monetary issues. He begged the Tribunal not to remove his licence saying this conduct would not happen again.

In emotional terms he said the incident did not reflect who he was and said that he hoped the Tribunal could allow his appeal and let him remain on the Register.

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:

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 has been convicted of a serious offence where a jury determined that he caused serious bodily injury to another. The Defendant maintained that he acted in self-defence, but this was not accepted by the jury. The Tribunal had to look very carefully at the situation here and consider firstly the circumstances as it could find them to be, and then what might the general public and/or a pupil feel about an individual with that sort of history being allowed to instruct and/or the way the Register may be perceived.

It is right to say that the incident concerned did not involve driving or any aspect of the Appellant’s life as an ADI. It is distinct in every way from that type of career/activity. However, it did concern the Appellant’s personal skills, his judgement when under pressure and the way he chose to deal with a situation. There are times when being an ADI can be challenging and so the Tribunal believed the conviction, and behaviour behind it, may be relevant.

There was a good body of character evidence provided by the Appellant that indicated that a number of people from the community, as well as former pupils viewed him in a positive light. The Appellant is a married man, of some 22 years and more, with 5 children. The Tribunal did not lose sight of the extent of the support the Appellant had garnered, or of the things he had assisted with in a positive way.

Having heard from the Appellant about the incident and compared that against the information the Tribunal was supplied with, the following facts seemed made out:

The Tribunal whilst able to see that the Appellant had learnt something from the incident, the prosecution, the impact on the Appellant and his family, were still concerned that the Appellant behaved in a violent way, even under these circumstances.

The previous caution was also worrying, whilst some time ago, it was a situation where the Appellant was “a bit loud.” The loss of control then, alongside the serious violence recently, caused the Tribunal significant concerns.

The Tribunal determined on all the evidence before it that the Appellant was not fit and proper. The loss of control, the use of a weapon, causing serious bodily injury were all factors, plus the credibility issues that meant that the Tribunal could not say that the Appellant was fit and proper to remain on the Register. In so finding the Tribunal was careful to balance the positive issues the Appellant had properly drawn attention to, but even allowing for those factors the Tribunal was unable to say that the Appellant could remain on the Register.

The Tribunal considered with care the way a future pupil, or parent, may look at the Register, which allows someone with a recent violent offence to teach, and came to the clear view that there would undoubtedly be real concerns. This was a further factor that meant that the Registrar’s decision was correct.

The Registrar must ensure firstly that only those that are fit and proper are on the Register, but also that the public understand that a rigorous and safe system is in place that ensures only those of the highest standing are allowed to instruct.

The Tribunal gave due weight to the financial consequences of the loss of licence to the Appellant but came to the view that the offending, and credibility issues, were too serious and even applying a proportionality test, the Registrar’s decision was correct.

The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect.

DATE: 18^th June 2025