Gavin Goodall v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 31 December 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 decision was based on the Appellant having been convicted of assault by beating (common assault).

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 15 January 2026 relies on his previous representations to the Registrar. He says that the conviction was for an isolated incident involving his former partner and her new partner, and he acted in self defence. He says that he had no legal representation during the proceedings, and he was found guilty as his version of events was not believed.

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 11 May 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 his name on the Register – see sections 125(3)(e) 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 56 pages. The Appellant provided a number of character references.

We heard evidence from the Appellant and the Tribunal panel asked him a number of questions. We also heard submissions from both parties. The Appellant was accompanied at the hearing by Mr Jason Wilson from the driving school where he works, who also provided some information at the hearing.

The Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in June 2018. He works as a senior trainer at a driving school.

On 21 July 2025 the Appellant notified the Registrar that he had been convicted by a magistrate with assault by beating, he was due to appear on 15 September for sentencing, and he intended to appeal. The Registrar considered removing the Appellant’s name from the Register on the grounds he had ceased to be a fit and proper person. The Appellant made representations which gave some context to the case, and the Registrar waited until after sentencing to make a final decision. The date for sentencing was changed, and after a number of chasing emails from the Registrar the Appellant confirmed on 25 November 2025 that he had been sentenced to a low-level community order for the offence of assault by beating. He also explained that on 24 November his solicitor had initiated an appeal against this conviction and sentencing,on the basis of the lack of legal representation at the first hearing and the insufficiency of evidence. The Registrar gave written notice on 26 November that he was considering removal of the Appellant’s name from the Register. The Appellant did not make any formal representations within 28 days, and his name was removed.

The Appellant provided further information at the hearing about the circumstances of his conviction:

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 of the importance that the honesty, integrity and probity of ADIs is maintained. 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. 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 safely.

We asked Mr Heard whether the information provided to the Appellant at the hearing made any difference to the underlying decision. He maintained that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Register. The decision was made without full information about the appeal. If the Registrar did have full information at the time of the decision, Mr Heard said that he may have decided to delay – but the Appellant had been convicted, and there is only so much time the Registrar can reasonably delay matters pending the outcome of a full appeal process.

We have considered this appeal carefully. In most cases, a criminal conviction will indicate that an ADI is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Register. The Tribunal does not usually look behind the conviction to the underlying circumstances. However, we find that this is an exceptional case. We have accepted the Appellant’s evidence that he did not have proper representation at the criminal hearing. His appeal has been accepted for a full retrial at the Crown Court with the agreement of the CPS, which indicates that there are genuine problems with his original conviction. This additional information about the appeal was not available to the Registrar when he made his decision.

We note that the conviction is not connected with teaching pupils or driving. We also note that the Appellant has remained on the Register pending the result of this appeal, which indicates that his conviction is not sufficiently serious to mean he is unsafe to teach pupils.

Having considered all the circumstances of the case, we conclude that the Appellant’s current conviction for assault by beating is not such that the public’s confidence in the Register would be undermined if it were generally known that he had been allowed to have his name retained on it. This is because of the circumstances surrounding the appeal and full retrial at Crown Court. The Appellant has remained on the Register to date, and on balance we find it would be appropriate for his name to remain on the Register pending the outcome of his appeal against conviction, which is due to be heard in approximately seven months. If that appeal is unsuccessful, the Registrar can (and should) revisit the issue of whether the Appellant is a fit and proper person.

We conclude that the Appellant is currently a fit and proper person to have his name entered on the Register. The appeal is allowed.