Shukri Maye v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 18^th October 2024 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 accrued 3 penalty points for failing to comply with a traffic light on 2^nd July 2024, and a further set of 6 points for using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a vehicle on 5^th July 2024. She currently has 9 points on her licence. The Registrar took the view the offending was serious and allowing her 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 15^th December 2024, indicates that the traffic light offence took place because of a medical issue that led to a loss of concentration. She has since then sought medical assistance and is now prescribed medications to alleviate the issues.

For the mobile phone offence the Appellant explains that she found herself in an unexpected delay and sent a picture of the traffic to the student she was to meet to alleviate the pupil’s stress. She indicates her vehicle was stationary, but acknowledges that her actions were illegal and she expressed regret and remorse for her actions. She stressed in all other regards she has upheld the high standards an ADI should have.

The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the Appellant told the Registrar of the convictions, but late. The combined effect of the convictions and the failure to indicate the same within the required period were of such note the Registrar took the view that she 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 attended and was unrepresented.

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

The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 36 pages.

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

The Appellant said she has been approved since 2014. She said she instructs 10 pupils a week personally and employs 5 other ADIs. She said that she has a respected pass rate.

The red light offence she acknowledged was serious. She set off that day unaware that she had medical problems, but it later turned out that she was suffering from an overactive thyroid and that led to her feeling unwell. After the traffic light she had pulled up as she felt unable to continue. Her GP had prescribed medicine to her and she said that things were now stable.

In terms of the mobile phone offence she accepted taking a photograph whilst sitting in stationary traffic, with the engine off, to try and allay the concerns of her next pupil. She thought that was the easiest way to use the phone rather than typing a long text message. She accepts this was wrong and apologised. She was asked if sending such a message might suggest that the use of a phone was acceptable, and she indicated that with hindsight yes but that was not her intention.

She said a police officer approached her after she had used her phone and she admitted she had. The Appellant said she told the officer that she was just notifying her pupil she was going to be late.

She said that she had admitted the offence straight away, and had paid the penalty.

She said the phone use on this occasion was a one-off; she said she didn’t do it all the time, and after sending this photograph had put the phone in her bag after turning the device off to prevent her student calling her.

The Appellant indicated that on another occasion an officer had pulled her over for using a mobile phone. She had been offered a driver training course as opposed to a fine and points, which she took at a cost of £100. She accepted that she attended the online course where they dealt with the use of phone and the risk they pose.

In concluding she explained she offered a bespoke driver training to women and losing her licence would deprive the community of this specialist service. She asked to be allowed to keep her licence for her, her family and the community.

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 has committed two offences within days of each other. The failure to inform the Registrar of the offences was troubling.

The traffic light offence, whilst potentially serious, on the materials provided would not of itself have led the Tribunal to come to a view that the Appellant must be removed from the Register. The suggestion that medical issues were in play, and those have been dealt with may have led the Tribunal to indicate a warning was perhaps appropriate.

However, the use of a mobile phone by an ADI is rarely a matter that can be overlooked or condoned to any degree. Here the explanation that it was appropriate to use a mobile phone to message a student that the Appellant was going to be late, caused the Tribunal significant concerns. Firstly, everyone knows that it is simply not appropriate to use a mobile phone whilst in control of a vehicle. The fact that the car was stationary, but in traffic does not mitigate its use. An ADI is required to follow the law and this sort of failure is extremely serious. Secondly, the fact that the message was sent to a student makes the position significantly worse. The Appellant has in effect taught the pupil that it is acceptable to use your phone under such circumstances, which is the exact opposite of what she should have taught. This isn’t even one of those cases where the ADI is saying “don’t do what I do, do what I say,” it’s in effect one where the ADI is positively suggesting it is acceptable to use a phone. The Tribunal finds that of itself is unforgiveable. Finally, the Appellant supplied a screenshot of the photograph she took, which was sent to the student concerned. It shows police cars on a road that has been cordoned off. Despite the obvious police presence the Appellant believed it acceptable to take the photograph, which to the Tribunal’s view raises very real difficulties in accepting that this sort of activity isn’t common place. An individual who feels it acceptable to take such a photograph, under the particular conditions, is one who isn’t showing any level of concern about using their mobile phone. It raises the very real suggestion that the Appellant uses her phone regularly, even though the Appellant denied that she did. The Tribunal was further troubled by this.

The Appellant’s acceptance of attending a driver awareness course for the use of mobile phones only added to the depressing picture the Tribunal found. This offence showed that she had not learnt anything from the course she attended, which was unhelpful to say the least. It showed that she had used her phone previously, adding to the Tribunal’s concerns that she used her phone regularly. Whilst the Appellant was honest enough to admit that matter, it did her no favours in the Tribunal’s overall assessment of her case.

The Tribunal noted that there were a number of character testimonials that spoke of the Appellant in favourably, positive terms. She has held a licence for a good period of time and asserts she has been trusted to train other ADIs. All of this had to be balanced against the offending.

The Tribunal comes to the view that the Registrar had no option but to remove the Appellant. 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 almost condone the convictions here. The Registrar simply cannot do that. As has already been indicated the mobile phone offence was serious enough on its own to remove her from the Register, but to send a communication to a pupil was an unbelievable error of judgement that cemented the position that the Appellant had to be removed.

The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect. The Registrar’s decision was entirely correct.