Emma Louise Stevens v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 18 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 because she had committed the offence of using a mobile phone while in charge of a vehicle, resulting in six 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 12 December 2025 says that the Registrar has a discretion in every case. She says that these are the first convictions since qualifying as an ADI in 2019, she is honest and reliable, and she was candid in her representations to the Registrar. She submits that the references do not find her behaviour unacceptable, but more indicative of a momentary lapse of judgment. Her personal circumstances show a decent person struggling to raise a family in unfortunate circumstances.

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 his 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 33 pages.

The Appellant provided evidence of her character, two references from professional colleagues and a reference from a pupil.

We heard submissions from both parties at the hearing. The Appellant gave evidence and answered questions from the Registrar and the Tribunal.

The Appellant’s name was first entered on the Register in 2019. On 20 October 2025 the Appellant sent an email to the Registrar saying that she had been stopped by a police officer for being on her phone while teaching a student. She explained she was under a lot of stress and checked a text message without thinking.

The Registrar gave the Appellant written notice on 20 October 2025 that he was considering removing the Appellant’s name from the Register on the grounds she had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have her name entered in it. The Appellant made representations on 30 October 2025. The Appellant explained that she had received a message and briefly replied to say she was teaching and would respond later. She also explained her difficult personal circumstances and the importance of her job as a single mother of two children, and apologised for the lapse in judgment.

On 18 November 2025 the Registrar removed the Appellant’s name from the Register with immediate effect, on the grounds she had ceased to be a fit and proper person.

At the hearing, the Appellant explained that the offence happened because she had a lot going on at the time, including being in court about her family situation and difficulties with one of her children. She saw she had a message, and checked it to see if it was about her children. It was actually from another pupil who wanted to change the time of her test, and she replied because she thought otherwise the pupil would go ahead anyway and she was not ready for the test. The Appellant confirmed that this happened while she was teaching a pupil, and they were in a temporary 40 mph zone due to roadworks. She now ensures her phone is on “do not disturb” during lessons (except for her mother and the children’s school).

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.

ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs adhere to the highest standards of motoring, which they themselves should be teaching to their pupils. Teaching people of all ages to drive safely, carefully, and competently is a professional vocation requiring a significant degree of responsibility. Such a demanding task should only be entrusted to those with high personal and professional standards and who themselves have demonstrated a keen regard for road safety and compliance with the law.

The Registrar’s position at the hearing was that he is able to consider exceptional circumstances, but the Appellant’s difficult personal circumstances were not relevant at the time of the offence. She did not simply check her phone to see if there was a message about her children, but replied to a message from a pupil. It was more than a momentary lapse in concentration, as she took the time to respond to a message. The reputation of the profession must be upheld, and this is more important than the effect on an individual ADI.

The Appellant’s representative argued that the test for a fit and proper person is not specifically defined or set in stone. There was no pattern of offending, and on balance she should be given one more opportunity. Weight should be given to the representations made by the Appellant to the Registrar. She is providing for her family in difficult circumstances by working as an ADI. On the balance of probabilities, this is a case where the Appellant should be permitted to carry on as an ADI.

We have taken into account the Appellant’s good references, and her explanation of how the offence happened. We note that the offence happened against a background of difficult personal circumstances. We understand that it may seem harsh to remove an ADI from the Register for one mistake. However, using a mobile phone while in charge of a vehicle is a very serious and a dangerous motoring offence. This is why it leads to six penalty points. It is particularly serious to do so while teaching a pupil, as by definition they are inexperienced drivers and an instructor should pay attention at all times to prevent and deal with any mistakes. The Appellant did not simply check a message on her phone to see if it was an urgent matter involving her children. She chose to take the time to reply to another pupil when she should have been supervising the pupil who was driving.

We do not find that the circumstances in this case are exceptional. We understand that removal from the Register will prevent the Appellant from working as an ADI to support her family, and we have some sympathy for her position. However, we must also give some weight to the Registrar’s position in this appeal as the expert regulator.

The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register, that those who are on it understand their responsibilities, and can show they not only know the rules but follow them. This would be undermined if the Appellant was allowed to remain on the Register. This is not simply a matter of whether the Appellant will commit the offence again. The public must have confidence in the Register, and this would be undermined if the Appellant is allowed to remain on the Register while she has six points on her licence for this offence.

We find 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 she was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal.