Michael David Brooke v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 26 November 2025 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (the “Register”) on the grounds that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). This was on the grounds of a complaint made by a pupil and a failure to declare a conviction for speeding resulting in 4 penalty points.

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

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 22 December 2025 relies on the following:

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 27 March 2026 resists the appeal. The Registrar says:

Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the applicant to be and continue to be a “fit and proper person” to have their name on the Register – see sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the “Act”).

The Registrar can remove a person’s name from the Register if they have ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name on the Register (section 128(2)(e) of the Act). The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. 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 60 pages.

We heard submissions from both parties, and asked the Appellant a number of questions in evidence.

The Appellant’s name was first entered on the Register in April 2012. He allowed his registration to lapse twice, and was removed from the Register in 2022 until August 2023 as he had been charged with and then acquitted of an offence.

The Registrar received a complaint from a female pupil about the Appellant and interviewed her on 8 September 2025. The complaints the pupil made at the interview included allegations that the Appellant initiated a number of conversations with her that related to personal matters, including about the sexual activity of his wife. She said that he had told her about how his ex-wife cheated on him with other men, and told stories of coming home to men in his house. She also said that he showed her a graphic image of a paused video on his mobile phone. She described this as a paused video of two naked bodies on the screen. She said this was shown to her after the Appellant had said he didn’t know if another pupil would be coming to her lesson, because she sent him a “naughty video” and her boyfriend found out.

The Registrar also took a statement from a second female pupil, who was the person who had sent the video message to the Appellant. This confirms that she accidentally sent him the video. She said the Appellant should have deleted it and should not have shown it to anyone else. She also said the Appellant is both her friend and driving instructor.

The Appellant was interviewed about these complaints by a Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency Investigator on 16 October 2025. We have seen the record of this interview. Key points are:

The Registrar also conducted a routine check of the Appellant’s driving licence record that showed he was convicted on 12 March 2024 for exceeding the speed limit on a Motorway (SP50) which occurred on the 9 October 2023 resulting in 4 penalty points on his driving licence. The Appellant had not declared this offence to the Registrar.

The Registrar gave the Appellant written notice that he was considering removing the Appellant’s name from the Register on the grounds he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in it. The Appellant made representations on 17 November 2025.

On 26 November 2025 the Registrar removed the Appellant’s name from the Register with immediate effect, on the grounds he had ceased to be a fit and proper person. This was based on the complaint by the pupil and the undeclared speeding conviction.

The Tribunal asked the Appellant a number of questions at the hearing about what had happened.

If an ADI’s name is allowed to 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 and other matters of responsibility, trustworthiness, inappropriate personal conduct or commission of criminal offences.

We have assessed the facts on the basis that it is imperative that the honesty, integrity and probity of ADIs is maintained. It is expected an ADI will have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist.

We have considered the Appellant’s grounds of appeal as follows.

The Registrar has failed to give adequate weight to the Appellant’s otherwise excellent record of approximately 13 years as an ADI, during which no complaint has been made against him by a pupil. We accept that, on the evidence we have seen, the Appellant has been an ADI for a number of years without any other complaints of this nature having been made out. However, this does not detract from the seriousness of the complaint in this case.

The Registrar has failed to give adequate weight to the context and circumstances surrounding the complaint made by the pupil, including her history of complaints against previous instructors. We note the Appellant’s evidence that the pupil has made complaints against two previous instructors. We do not have details about these complaints. However, the Appellant has admitted to having overshared personal information and shown an inappropriate paused video to the pupil. These actions were clearly inappropriate, as found in the facts above.

The failure to notify the Registrar of the penalty points was not deliberate or wilful but arose from an honest mistake. This may have been a mistake. However, it is a mistake that an ADI should not make, especially so soon after re-signing the declaration that he would declare all offences within seven days. The Appellant made time to report the offence to his insurance company. The failure to declare to the Registrar shows at best a lack of attention to the important responsibilities that come with being a registered ADI.

The Appellant remains a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances. We do not agree. The Appellant failed to declare his driving conviction. This on its own would not necessarily be grounds for removal from the Register. However, the Appellant also engaged in clearly inappropriate conduct. The Approved Driving Instructor Code of Practice provides a helpful reference point for the standard of behaviour expected of an ADI. Under the heading “Personal Conduct”, it is said that an instructor agrees to “avoid the use of inappropriate language to clients”, “not initiate inappropriate discussions about their own personal relationships and take care to avoid becoming involved in a client’s personal affairs or discussions about a client’s personal relationships”, and “avoid circumstances and situations which could be perceived to be of an inappropriate nature”. As found in the facts, the Appellant did have inappropriate personal discussions with a female pupil, which included talking about his wife’s sex life. Most seriously, he deliberately showed the pupil a paused video showing an intimate image of another pupil. This was potentially sexual harassment of the pupil who was shown the video, and a serious breach of privacy for the pupil who had accidentally sent him the video. These are very clear breaches of the Code of Practice.

Removal from the Register would be disproportionate having regard to the nature of the matters complained of and his otherwise exemplary record. We do not agree that it would be disproportionate. Removal from the Register is entirely appropriate in the circumstances. The matters complained of were extremely serious, and we have found that they happened as described by the complainant in her interview. We are also very concerned about the Appellant’s lack of remorse and understanding about the importance of maintaining a professional relationship with pupils, and how this conduct would affect a female pupil, describing it during the hearing as a “mountain out of a molehill”.

A substantial level of trust is placed on ADIs by pupils, parents, other ADIs, road users and the public. The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register. This would be undermined if the Appellant was allowed to remain on the Register. The public are entitled to know that the Registrar will ensure that often young and impressionable pupils are being instructed by those that behave properly and understand the consequences of inappropriate conduct.

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’s name from the Register as he was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal.