Colin Stiles v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors  ("the Registrar") made on 11 February 2026 to refuse the Appellant’s application for a licence to give instructions in driving motor cars on the grounds that the Appellant does not meet the condition in Section 125(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the Act”) because the Appellant cannot be considered a ‘fit and proper’ person to become an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”).

The basis of the Decision was that the Appellant received two convictions in October 2025 for assaulting a police officer and assaulting a security guard.

The Tribunal conducted a hearing by CVP at which it heard a submission from Mr Raja on behalf of the Registrar and evidence from the Appellant. The Appellant was unable to join the hearing by video due to technical difficulties with his equipment so engaged by telephone. The Tribunal considered a Bundle of 47 pages.

The Appellant puts forward the following grounds of appeal:

The Registrar is responsible for maintaining the Register of Approved Driving Instructors and ensuring that those whose names appear upon the Register continue to satisfy the statutory requirements prescribed by Parliament.

One of those requirements is contained within section 129(2)(b) of the Act, which provides that an individual making an application for a licence to give instruction (more commonly known as a trainee licence) must be a fit and proper person as set out in section 125(3)(e) of the Act.

The requirement to be a fit and proper person is not confined to the point of initial application. It is a continuing obligation which applies throughout the duration of an instructor's qualification period and registration if achieved.

Where information comes to the attention of the Registrar which calls into question whether an instructor continues to satisfy that requirement, the Registrar is under a statutory duty to consider that information and determine whether he is satisfied that the instructor remains a fit and proper person.

The purpose of the Registrar's powers is not punitive. Rather, the purpose is protective. The Registrar's responsibility is to protect the public, maintain confidence in the Register of ADIs and uphold the standards expected of those entrusted with the instruction of learner drivers.

Learner drivers are often inexperienced, nervous, impressionable and vulnerable. Parents and guardians place trust in ADIs to maintain professional standards, safeguard pupils and exercise sound judgement at all times.

The Registrar considers that the role carries significant safeguarding responsibilities.

Those responsibilities extend beyond the avoidance of criminal conduct. They include maintaining appropriate professional boundaries, exercising professional judgement and ensuring that relationships with pupils remain professional at all times.

The Registrar, when making decisions, has regard to the standards expected of ADIs, including the safeguarding principles which underpin the ADI Code of Practice and DVSA's wider expectations regarding professional conduct, integrity, professionalism and appropriate boundaries.

The Registrar considered that public confidence in the Register depends upon instructors demonstrating not only technical competence but also appropriate standards of conduct and professional judgement.

Having considered all the available material, the Registrar concluded that the Appellant had ceased to be a ‘fit and proper ‘person and was not suitable to be issued with a trainee licence.

Formal notice was issued on 11 February 2026, in accordance with section 129(4) of the Act.

The Registrar submitted, in summary, that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person to have their name entered in the Register.

The Appellant stated that he had attended a football match with his son, aged 19 years, on 16 April 2025, having consumed between 5 and 8 pints of lager. There was an altercation between his son and a passenger on the train. The Appellant’s son punched a passenger who was being was rude and offensive to the Appellant. The Appellant and his son were ejected from the train. While on the platform the security guards pushed the Appellant’s son with some force towards the railings and one security guard blocked the Appellant from getting to his son. The Appellant punched the security guard. The police arrived and the Appellant was pushed to the floor and handcuffed with his hands behind his back. As he was being walked to the entrance he stated a security guard tried to trip him up and as he was trying to get his balance he kicked a police officer. He was taken to the custody centre, detained overnight, interviewed the next day and then charged with the offence of assaulting an emergency worker and common assault on the security guard. He was bailed and the conditions of bail were that he could not use the railway service of the Great Western Railway between Paddington Station and Reading for a period of 6 months.

When he attended the Court for his hearing he viewed the video evidence and received advice from his solicitor before deciding to plead guilty to both charges. He paid about £1300 which included compensation of £700 to the police officer and £200 to the security guard.

He stated he had kept informed Bill Plant, his trainer and sponsor, who was waiting to see the outcome the Tribunal’s decision before deciding whether the relationship could continue.

The Appellant stated he was deeply remorseful about what happened which he stated should never have happened. The situation escalated and it was regrettable.

He stated he had learned from the incident. He had stopped drinking alcohol and attending football matches. He had learned to pause and count to 10 before responding to stressful situations.

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)(e) and 129(2)(b) of 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).

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal has carefully balanced the matters put forward by the Appellant against those matters which weigh against his application. The Tribunal undertook a proportionality assessment.

In reaching its decision the Tribunal had regard to the well-established regulatory principle articulated by Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, namely that:

The Tribunal considered that the same principle applies to the Register of ADIs. The maintenance of public confidence in the Register and the standards expected of those appearing upon it, when granted a licence, is of fundamental importance.

The Tribunal accepts that the offending arose from a single sequence of events on 16 April 2025, rather than from any established pattern of offending behaviour. The Tribunal accepts, also, that the Appellant entered guilty pleas, expressed remorse for his actions, disclosed the convictions to the DVSA of his own accord and has not come to further adverse attention since the incident.

The Tribunal has taken into account the Appellant’s evidence that he no longer consumes alcohol and his acknowledgement that alcohol played a significant part in the events leading to these convictions.

The Tribunal accepts that the Appellant has reflected on the incident and says he has learned to pause and regulate his response when confronted with situations that might previously have provoked an immediate reaction.

Set against that, however, are a number of significant considerations.

When completing his application to start the qualification process and then again on his application for a trainee licence, the Appellant declared that he had read and agreed to the conditions set out in the Register guide. The Approved Driving Instructor Register Guide (“the guide”) appears at pages 27 to 47 of the Bundle.

Section 2.4 of the guide refers to the requirement of being a fit and proper person and references, also, the ADI code of practice. Section 2.4 states:

“2.4

Being a ‘fit and proper’ person

You must be a ‘fit and proper’ person to be an ADI.

ADIs are in a position of considerable trust. The ADI Registrar protects the image of the

register and maintains the public’s confidence in the ADI industry.

What ‘fit and proper’ means

The law says you must be a ‘fit and proper’ person, but does not define what it means.

The ADI Registrar interprets it as the personal and professional standards, conduct or

behaviour that could be unacceptable in the eyes of the public and other ADIs.

It’s not possible to be definitive about what’s classed as ‘fit and proper’. There has to be

some discretion to take into account the circumstances of each case.

The ADI Registrar makes an assessment of the risk you’re likely to pose to the public.”

Section 2.5 of the guide refers to criminal records and specifically states ‘you’re unlikely to be fit and proper if you have been cautioned or convicted of assault’.

Entry on to the Register of ADIs is not simply an administrative step. It represents an endorsement by the Secretary of State that an individual is suitable to occupy a position of trust and responsibility. ADIs work closely with members of the public, often with young, inexperienced and potentially vulnerable learners. The question is not, therefore, merely whether the Appellant is sorry for what occurred, but whether he has demonstrated that he is presently a fit and proper person to be entrusted with that role.

The view of the Tribunal is that the factual circumstances of the offending are serious. What began as a verbal altercation on a train escalated through a number of stages. The Appellant accepted that, after he and his son were removed from the train, he punched a security guard. He further accepted that he later kicked a police officer whilst being escorted in handcuffs. These were two separate acts of violence which resulted in two separate convictions, one for common assault and one for assaulting an emergency worker. The offending was committed when the Appellant had consumed a substantial quantity of alcohol, by his own estimate between 5 and 8 pints of lager. The conduct demonstrated a significant loss of judgement and self-control. The Appellant’s reaction at the time of the offence was wholly unacceptable and falls well short of the professional standards of conduct and behaviour expected of a driving instructor.

In reaching its decision the Tribunal has attached weight to the fact that the criminal court ordered compensation to be paid to both victims. The Appellant was required to pay £700 in compensation in respect of one victim and £200 in respect of the other, a total of £900, in addition to fines and costs. Whilst the Tribunal does not seek to revisit the sentencing exercise undertaken by the criminal court, the level of compensation ordered reflects that the offending had a real impact on those affected and was regarded by the court as sufficiently serious to warrant substantial financial redress.

The Tribunal considered, also, the Appellant's reliance on CCTV footage. However, no CCTV evidence was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not consider it significant that the CCTV evidence was not available and drew no adverse inferences from the fact the footage has not been produced. The Appellant entered guilty pleas at the first opportunity having received advice from a Solicitor and the convictions stand. The Tribunal's task is not to revisit those convictions or speculate about what unseen footage might show. The appeal falls to be determined on the evidence before the Tribunal, the fact of the convictions and the factual admissions made by the Appellant during the hearing.

The Tribunal considered how a reasonable learner driver, or a parent entrusting a learner driver to an instructor, would view knowledge that the instructor had, only a relatively short time earlier, received two separate convictions for offences of violence. That is not a determinative question, but it is a relevant one when considering public confidence in the Register and whether an individual satisfies the fit and proper requirement. It is the view of the Tribunal, many learners, and those responsible for them, would legitimately be concerned to learn that their instructor had recently been convicted of assaults upon both a security guard and a police officer.

The Tribunal has borne in mind that if an ADI's name is allowed to be entered in 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.

While the Tribunal accepts that the Appellant has reflected on his conduct, it notes that the evidence of rehabilitation was almost entirely his own. No character references were provided. No professional references were produced. No supporting evidence was obtained from Bill Plant notwithstanding the Appellant's reliance on the continued support of that organisation. The explanation that he was too embarrassed to seek references is understandable, but it leaves the Tribunal with little independent evidence against which to assess the changes he says he has made.

Ultimately, this appeal is not concerned with punishment. The convictions have already been dealt with by the criminal courts. The task for the Tribunal is whether the Registrar was wrong to conclude that the Appellant did not satisfy the fit and proper person requirement. Having weighed all of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the seriousness of the conduct, the fact that it involved two separate violent offences, the impact upon two victims, the relatively recent nature of the convictions and the absence of independent evidence demonstrating rehabilitation outweigh the factors advanced in mitigation.

The Appellant stated whether he is offered a franchise will depend on the outcome of this appeal and whether he is granted a licence. This fact does not weigh in the Tribunal’s consideration of whether he is a fit and proper person.

In all the circumstances the Tribunal considered that refusal of the Appellant’s application for a trainee licence was necessary, justified and proportionate.

For those reasons, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the Registrar's decision was wrong and the appeal is dismissed.