Mohammed Enamul Islam 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 been disqualified and no longer held a driving licence. The Registrar stated that they had come to this conclusion because the Appellant had received six penalty points on 29 November 2023 for speeding (the “First Offence”) and had received a conviction on 1 July 2025 for speeding on 28 December 2024, which resulted in the Appellant being disqualified from driving until 24 August 2025 (the “Second Offence”). The Registrar accordinglyconsidered 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. The Appellant stated that his driving disqualification, in respect of the Second Offence, had expired (as of 25 August 2025) and consequently that he was legally able to hold a driving licence and resume driving and teaching.

The Appellant’s appeal also relied, in summary, on the grounds that:

The Appellant provided a reference from an ADI & Audit Trainer which attested to his good character, as well as his long-standing record of service, his ongoing contributions to the driver training community and his potential to continue positively influencing learners and fellow instructors.

The Registrar resisted the appeal. In their Statement of Case, the Registrar stated that they did not accept the Appellant’s explanation regarding the mitigating circumstances of the Second Offence. The Registrar stated that by increasing his speed in the incident in question, he increased the risk to himself and others when he should be decreasing the risk. The Registrar submitted that the Appellant, as an ADI, should know what steps to take in that situation (and should be teaching those steps to learner drivers he is teaching). The Registrar also stated that they could not ignore the fact that the Appellant had received six penalty points for speeding previously and was later disqualified from driving for the same serious motoring offence.

The Registrar accordingly upheld their view that the Appellant was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to have their name in the Register. The Registrar also stated that the Appellant had not given notification of the Second Offence within 7 days, despite an obligation to do so pursuant to their registration as an ADI.

The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal Panel, the Appellant and Mr Raja (on behalf of the Registrar) joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.

Some technical difficulties were encountered when first trying to connect the Appellant to the online hearing, but once those difficulties had been resolved there were no interruptions of note during the hearing.

The Tribunal read and took account of a bundle of evidence and pleadings, as well as a written skeleton argument from the Registrar.

We heard from the Appellant directly, as well as hearing oral submissions from Mr Raja 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.

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.

In this case, the Appellant had committed the First Offence and was given a warning by the Registrar (by way of an email dated 4 January 2024) that further transgressions might result in the removal of his name from the Register. Notwithstanding that warning, the Appellant subsequently committed the Second Offence.

The Registrar submitted that the Appellant’s position regarding the alleged mitigating circumstances of the Second Offence demonstrated limited insight into the standards expected of an ADI.

The Registrar cited statistics of injuries and deaths relating to driving offences. The Registrar considered that he could not condone the Offences. The Registrar’s view was that allowing the Appellant to remain in the Register could undermine the public’s confidence in it. They added that it would be offensive to other ADIs and those trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, to allow the Appellant to remain in the Register, given the Offences.

During the hearing, the Appellant stated that they would react differently if similar circumstances to the Second Offence occurred in the future. He accepted that the appropriate course of action should have been to slow down and not accelerate when being tailgated.

However, we agree with the Registrar that, given his status as an ADI (and the associated knowledge he should have, including with regard to what should be taught to his learner drivers), the Appellant should have known not to act in the way he did regarding the commission of the Second Offence. Consequently, we do not consider that there were relevant mitigating circumstances regarding the Second Offence – and particularly given that the Appellant had previously been warned by the Registrar about further transgressions following the First Offence.

In simple terms, the Appellant had been caught speeding previously, in respect of the First Offence and (despite being warned about his future behaviour) then exceeded the speed limit again, in respect of the Second Offence. The Appellant confirmed during the hearing that he had accepted the disqualification for the Second Offence in order to avoid incurring penalty points.

Mr Raja also referred to the legal position that a person cannot apply to become an ADI if they had been disqualified from driving within the previous four years. He submitted that it would likewise be wrong to allow the Appellant to remain on the Register, given that he had been banned from driving (by way of the Second Offence).

We concur with that submission. Combining that point with the commission of the Offences, we find that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person to have their name retained in the Register. 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.