Christopher Way v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

References in this decision to a ‘section’ are references to the applicable section of The Road Traffic Act 1988.

In this decision, we use the following terms to denote the meanings shown:

This was an appeal against the Registrar’s Decision.

The reasons for the Registrar’s Decision were, in summary, that the Appellant had accrued penalty points for motoring offences – namely, a fixed penalty of three penalty points on 22 July 2023 for speeding, a fixed penalty of three penalty points on 1 September 2025 for speeding and a potential further fixed penalty of three penalty points for another alleged speeding offence which the Appellant had notified to the Registrar – and accordingly the Registrar considered that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name entered in the Register.

The Appellant challenged the Registrar’s Decision. He stated that he accepted the Registrar’s Decision but that his appeal was a plea for clemency on the basis that he would lose his ability to earn a living if he was no longer an ADI. The Appellant also stated that he was a Grade A instructor with a high pass rate.

The Registrar resisted the appeal. In his Statement of Case, the Registrar stated that they considered that the Appellant had not displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety expected from an ADI. The Registrar accordingly upheld their view that the Appellant was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to have their name in the Register.

The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal Panel, the Appellant and Mr Heard (on behalf of the Registrar) joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. There were no interruptions of note during the hearing.

The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle of evidence and pleadings.

We also heard from the Appellant directly, as well as hearing oral submissions from Mr Heard on behalf of the Registrar.

All of the contents of the bundle and the parties’ submissions were taken into account, even if not directly referred to in this decision.

Section 123(1) prohibits the giving of instruction in the driving of a motor car for payment unless the instructor’s name is entered in the Register, or they are the holder of a current licence issued under section 129.

Conditions for entry and retention in the Register require a person to be, and continue to be, a “fit and proper person” pursuant to section 125(3)(e) and section 127(3)(e).

A person’s name may therefore be removed from the Register under section 128(2)(e) if the Registrar considers that they have ceased to be a “fit and proper person”.

The requirement to be a “fit and proper person” is not simply that the person is a fit and proper person to be a driving instructor, but that they are a fit and proper person to have their name entered in the Register. Accordingly, the requirement to be a “fit and proper person” extends beyond instructional ability alone and, in assessing whether someone is a “fit and proper person”, account has to be taken of their character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of all material matters, including convictions, cautions and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters in context, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate.

The entry of a person’s name in the Register carries with it an ‘official seal of approval’ and consequently maintenance of public confidence in the Register is important. The Registrar therefore has the duty of ensuring that ADIs are ‘fit and proper’ persons to have their names entered in the Register. As part of that, the Registrar exercises functions of scrutiny and that is why there are stringent disclosure requirements expected of ADIs and those wishing to become an ADI.

In cases involving motoring offences, it is expected that anyone who is to be an ADI will have standards of driving and behaviour above that of an ordinary motorist. Teaching people of all ages (including those aged under 18) 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.

In cases involving non-motoring offences, the standing of the Register could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidence could be undermined, if it were known that a person’s name had been permitted onto, or allowed to remain on, the Register when they had demonstrated behaviours, or been convicted or cautioned in relation to offences, substantially material to the question of fitness.

Some of the factors in the preceding paragraph can also be relevant in cases involving motoring offences.

An appeal to the Tribunal against the Registrar’s Decision is undertaken by way of a ‘re-hearing’; the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence before it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s Decision (as the Registrar is tasked by Parliament with making such decisions). The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process but, in reaching its decision, the Tribunal may review any findings of fact on which the Registrar’s Decision was based and the Tribunal may come to a different decision regarding those facts.

The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 131(3). In summary, for the purposes of the appeal, the Tribunal is empowered to make an order for the removal or the retention of the Appellant’s name in the Register, as it thinks fit.

However, under section 131(4A), if the Tribunal considers that any evidence adduced on the appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before the Registrar’s Decision, it may (instead of making such an order) remit the matter to the Registrar for them to reconsider the Registrar’s Decision.

Where the Tribunal makes an order for the removal of the Appellant’s name in the Register, it may also, pursuant to section 131(4), direct that (in essence) the Appellant cannot apply to have their name entered in the Register for a period of up to four years.

In this case, the Appellant’s driving licence has been endorsed with penalty points for speeding on three separate occasions.

The Registrar submitted that they had warned the Appellant in 2017 about future driving offences. However, no documentary evidence of that warning was provided. We nevertheless consider that, as a result of his first speeding offence, the Appellant should have been on notice about his conduct and should have taken extra care to avoid speeding in the future. Notwithstanding that, he was since caught speeding again.

The Appellant accepted, during the hearing, that he was guilty of the three speeding offences. He stated that he had enough experience to know what a safe limit was for the driving conditions and that he did not “take risks”. He also stated that he would never encourage his students to break speed limits.

The Appellant also expressed his views regarding roads in his locality which had a 20 mph speed limit but should not have, and those which had a 30 mph speed limit and which would be more appropriate for a 20 mph speed limit.

As we have noted, the Registrar has the duty of ensuring that those who have their names entered in the Register are ‘fit and proper’ persons. Part of this is ensuring that ADIs understand their responsibilities and can show that they not only know the rules but follow them (which in turn can reflect on what is learned by those they teach).

The Registrar cited statistics of injuries and deaths relating to driving offences. The Registrar considered that he could not condone motoring offences such as those which the Appellant had been found guilty of. They added that it would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, to ignore the Appellant’s speeding offences.

We agree with the Registrar’s view in respect of this case. In our view, the Appellant has shown a pattern of behaviour indicating that he chooses to exceed the speed limit when he considers it appropriate to do so, or based on his view as to what the appropriate speed limit should be. As an ADI, the Appellant should be observing motoring laws, including speed limits, and should know the risks of speeding and the potential consequences of harm or injury to the driver and others (including pedestrians). We find it concerning that the Appellant considered that he could, in effect, choose to decide whether or not to observe the speed limit based on his own assessment of risk.

For all of the reasons we have given, we find that the Appellant has ceased to be a ‘fit and proper’ person to have their name retained in the Register. On balance, taking into account all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar’s Decision was correct.

We therefore dismiss the appeal and we order that the Appellant’s name be removed from the Register.