Hearing Heard on: 22 April and 4 August 2026Date 24 August 2026
Transport
Before
Judge Simon Bird KCTribunal Member Richard FryTribunal Member Martin Smith
Between
JAHIDUR RAHMANAppellantRegistrar of Approved Driving InstructorsRespondentAppellant: Mr Jahidur RahmanRespondent: Mr Darren Russell (22 April 2026), Andrew Heard (4 August 2026)Decision: The Appeal is dismissedDECISION AND REASONS
Introduction to the Appeal
[1]This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (”the Registrar”) made on 12 August 2025 that the Appellant’s name should be removed from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (”the Register”) on the grounds that under Section 128(2) (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (” the Act “) the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the Register (”the Decision”).[2]The basis for the Decision was that the Appellant had been arrested on 6 July 2025 on suspicion of “Sexual Assault on a female aged 13 and over” following a complaint from an adult female that between 28 May 2025 and 4 June 2025, she had been sexually assaulted by the Appellant whilst he was her driving instructor.[3]On 31 August 2025, the Appellant appealed against the Decision.[4]The appeal was heard by video (CVP). The parties joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. The hearing commenced on 22 April 2026 but was adjourned part heard as documents which the Appellant had provided to HMCTS in order to support his appeal, had not been received either by the Registrar or the Tribunal. The hearing resumed on 4 August 2026. On that day, the proceedings were observed by a Judicial Trainee. The parties consented to her retiring with the Tribunal to observe their deliberations on the understanding that she would play no part in those deliberations and attended purely to observe for training purposes.[5]The Tribunal’s decision is unanimous.
The Appeal
[6]The Appeal The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal contends that:[7](a). The Registrar’s decision was reached prematurely, without due process and without sufficient evidence to justify such a serious outcome; (b). At the date of the decision no evidence had been collated, no charge had been laid and he had not been convicted. Despite this, his name had been removed from the register; a decision of such magnitude that it should be considered only after a fair hearing and proper examination of the evidence; (c). He had been an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”) since the early 2000s, with over 20 years’ service to pupils and, during this time, he had built long-lasting relationships with many pupils. It had always been part of his teaching ethos to support pupils beyond their driving lessons including assisting them with car searches, accompanying them to dealerships and offering guidance in becoming a safe and confident driver. His conduct had never been questioned before and reflects his character as approachable, supportive and committed to his pupil’s success; (d). On 6 July 2025 he was arrested following an allegation of sexual assault made by a pupil and released the same day on bail with conditions. His online diary and WhatsApp messages clearly demonstrate that the pupil continued to book and attend lessons both during and after the alleged incidents. She even rebooked lessons immediately after visiting his home and referred to him as her “friend” in text messages. That behaviour is inconsistent with an individual who felt assaulted; (e). The pupil’s visit to his home had been voluntary and pre-arranged and was in line with the support he had offered pupils in the past (e.g. assisting with car searches, collecting vehicles). She has also expressed a strong interest in meeting his cats which formed part of the arrangement; (f). The most serious allegation raised in his Police interview was that he had coerced the pupil to sit on his lap. That is inaccurate. The pupil entered his home and spent around 10 minutes chasing his cats around in a playful manner. In a lighthearted, joking comment, he suggested the cats might respond if she were to hug him or sit on his lap as this was their personal space; (g). The pupil voluntarily sat down and did not sit on his lap but directly on his genital area, which surprised him and he assumed was accidental. He immediately moved her away in a non-serious manner; (h). The interaction was not initiated by him and was not sustained. He disclosed it voluntarily to the Police; the pupil not having raised it. This demonstrated transparency and honesty on his part rather than concealment and guilt; and (i). The timing of events strongly suggested that the complaint may have arisen from the dynamics within the pupil’s relationship with her boyfriend who he was also teaching. After her visit to the Appellant’s home, the tone of communication abruptly changed and both of them ceased lessons claiming a sudden family emergency in China. This sequence strongly suggested external pressure or influence The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 16 January 2026 resists the appeal. In summary, the Registrar submits that:
(a). The Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in May 2005. His name was removed from the register on 1 June 2009 following expiry of his certificate of registration. His name was re-entered in the register in May 2025 and in the normal course of events, his certificate of registration will expire on the last day of May 2029. (b). As the regulator of ADIs, his principal role is to ensure that instruction provided by ADIs meets the required standard and that all ADIs have met, and continue to meet, the fit and proper criteria to have their names entered and retained in the register. He also expects ADIs to adhere to professional standards and business ethics when dealing with customers; (c). On 8 July 2025 he was advised by West Midlands Policy under the Common Law Police Disclosure that the Appellant had been arrested on 6 July 2025 on suspicion of sexual assault on a female aged 13 and over. This followed a complaint from an adult female that between 28 May 2025 and 4 June 2025 she had been sexually assaulted by the Appellant who was her driving instructor. The Appellant had been released on bail with a condition that he should not be in a vehicle unaccompanied with a female unless she was a family member. In the light of this information the Registrar considered that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have his name retained on the register; (d). On 8 July 2025, the Appellant was given written notice that he was considering removing his name from the register and he was invited to make representations within 28 days, which would be taken into account in reaching his decision; (e). The letter was followed up with a courtesy call to the Appellant on 28 July 2025 asking whether he intended to respond to the letter of 8 July. An answerphone message was left; (f). The Appellant made no representation within the specified time and therefore, the Registrar based his decision on the Policy disclosure. The Appellant was given notice of the decision that he had ceased to be a fit and proper person to be entered on the register on 8 August 2025; (g). On 10 August 2025 he received an e-mail from the Appellant stating that he had not seen the earlier correspondence, his phone having been taken away by the Police as part of their investigation and a host of other important matters. The Appellant emphatically denied all of the allegations which had been made, as he had done in his interview with the Police. The Appellant stated that when he compliments customers, this is never in a sexual way and he compliments both men and women. The circumstances and events surrounding his customer’s visit to his house on the day of the alleged offence were set out consistently with his grounds of appeal to the Tribunal. He vehemently denied all the allegations of molesting or kissing whether in his car or otherwise; (h). Whilst the Registrar accepts that the Appellant had not been charged or convicted of any offence at the date of his decision and the Appellant denied a number of allegations made, by his own admittance he took the complainant back to his home and invited her to sit on his lap. He also stated that he has personal relationships with many of his pupils in breach of the professional boundaries of the expected instructor pupil relationship. He has admitted to behaviour that is not appropriate between instructor and pupil. The conditions for entry onto the register extent beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. Teaching (generally) young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and high demanding task and should only be entrusted to those with high standards. The Registrar would be failing in his public duty if he allowed a person who had been charged with these offences to have his name retained on the register; (i). Registration represents official approval. The Registrar is concerned that the good name of the register would be tarnished and the public’s confidence undermined if it were generally known that he has allowed the Appellant’s name to be retained on it. It would also be offensive to other ADI’s and persons trying to qualify as ADI’s who had been scrupulous in their professional conduct for him to ignore the inappropriate and unprofessional conduct displayed by the Appellant. The Hearing The Registrar’s Submissions The Registrar summarised his response to the appeal. As far as the Appellant’s conduct was concerned there were a number of matters of serious concern namely, his invitation to the complainant to his house to show her his cats and to help her look for a car, the suggestion that she sit on his lap and his statement that he always had this kind of relationship with his pupils.[9]The Registrar updated the position in relation to the criminal proceedings. The Appellant had now been charged and a trial date had been fixed at Birmingham Crown Court for 4 September 2028. Where an ADI is charged with a sexual offence, the Registrar will normally consider suspension but he will also take account of any bail conditions imposed in deciding what action to take. Here, there was an initial bail condition that the Appellant would not be in a vehicle unaccompanied with a female who is not a family member. Here, however, the Registrar relied for his decision on the Appellant’s admissions in interview which showed breaches of the Industry Code of Practice which stresses that inappropriate physical contact should be avoided, as should becoming involved in a client’s personal affairs. The Code also states that situations which are or could be perceived to be of an inappropriate nature should be avoided.[10]Whilst the Registrar accepts the Appellant has not been convicted, his course of conduct and behaviour cannot be condoned. It has fallen short of the standard required and he is not longer a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the register.
The Appellant’s Submissions
[11]The Appellant’s Submissions The Appellant summarised the content of his notice of appeal. By way of update he stated that other than a condition requiring him not to contact the complainant, he is not subject to any other bail conditions. He relied on the content of text messages passing between himself and the complainant and the complainant’s boyfriend to show that lessons continued to be booked by them, even after the claimed incident. These showed that his first text contact with the complainant was on 19 May 2025 with the first driving instruction provided on 22 May 2025. There were subsequent lessons on 28 May 2025, 2 June 2025 and 4 June 2025. He also produced the charge sheet relating to the allegations dated 6 January 2026 in order to confirm that there were no longer any conditions attached to his bail. The charge sheet also shows that two charges have been laid of “intentionally touching a woman aged 16 or over and that touching was sexual in nature when she did not consent and you did not reasonably believe that she was consenting” relating to 2 and 4 June 2025 respectively. The Appellant stated that the incident at his flat concerning the cats occurred on 4 June 2025. As far as he was aware, the allegation relating to 2 June 2025 related to his conduct during the driving lesson on that day.[12]In terms of the circumstances surrounding the allegation of 4 June 2025, the Appellant stressed that the invitation to the complainant to visit his flat was mutually arranged and that whilst he does go out for meals with his pupils and their partners, has even invited some to his wedding and remained friends with others from as far back as 2005/2006, that reflects the fact that he is a social and friendly person. He had become friends with the complainant and they were very friendly with each other. He is friendly with the complainant’s boyfriend and he did not see anything wrong in inviting her to his flat and not foresee any of this developing. There was nothing of a sexual nature in anything he said or did. With hindsight he probably should not have invited her to his flat. It was a mistake and an error of judgment. Invitations to pupils to his flat were occasional. He is always professional and respects professional boundaries. The Appellant stated that ADI’s and their pupils are human beings and it was almost impossible not to interact and they will make friends. There are boundaries, but he had never crossed them and he did not consider that the decision to remove him from the register was fair.[13]The allegation made against him was a seismic shock and he had never had such an issue before. He stated that such allegations ruin men’s reputations and he was now one of many men to face a false allegation. He had now ceased all socialising with pupils. He confirmed that he had been on the register from 2004-2009 and was entered on it again in 2024 confining his teaching in the intervening period to friends and family. He was a popular and successful ADI and he would not jeopardize his career in the way alleged.
The law
[14]The law 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 Act . 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.[15]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 ).[16]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. “ (paragraph 30).
The evidence and facts
[17]The evidence and facts We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 44 pages.[18]There is no material dispute of fact involved in these appeals. The Registrar’s decision and response to the appeal is based on the Appellant’s own evidence and admissions as to the circumstances surrounding the allegations made against him. The Tribunal has not seen or heard any evidence as to those circumstances other than the Appellant’s evidence and it makes no finding in relation to the complainant’s allegations.
Conclusions
[19]Conclusions If an ADI’s name is allowed to be entered in the Register when they have demonstrated behaviours which are relevant to and bear negatively on fitness, this will diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public’s confidence in the Register.[20]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 behaviour, 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.[21]By the Appellant’s own admission, he invited a client, a pupil who he had only recently met back to his home for purposes wholly unrelated to the provision of driving tuition. The two of them were the only people in the house at that time. The fact that her visiting his home was mutually agreed does not alter the fact that the Appellant was, contrary to the Industry Code of Practice, placing himself in circumstances which, judged objectively were clearly inappropriate for an ADI. In the interests of ensuring that the relationship between instructor and pupil remains a professional one, Section 1 of the Code of Practice seeks to ensure that an appropriate distance is maintained between them.[22]Matters did not, however, rest there. The Appellant’s suggestion that the pupil should sit on his lap, whilst humorous, was apparently not understood by the pupil to be made in jest, leading her to do just that. This seriously compounded the already inappropriate conduct of being present alone with a pupil in his flat. The inappropriateness is clear from the fact that it has exposed the Appellant to the vehemently disputed allegations of sexual misconduct which form the basis for the criminal charges laid against him. He invited inappropriate physical contact with his client through the use of inappropriate language which generated circumstances which he accepts, with hindsight, could be perceived to be inappropriate. As was clear from his representations before the Tribunal, he is well aware of the risk of allegations of sexual misconduct being made and the fact that he nonetheless encouraged this visit to his flat, shows an alarming absence of judgment.[23]It is also clear from the Appellant’s evidence that, whilst inviting clients to his home might not have been a regular occurrence, it was not unusual and this, coupled with his evidence about his other social contacts and friendships with clients, including going out for meals and to the cinema. Despite this, he maintained that he had never crossed appropriate professional boundaries. However, this demonstrates a chronic inability to understand the proper bounds of the professional relationship between an ADI and their clients which the Code of Practice seeks to maintain in the interests of protecting the integrity of the role and the register in regulation it. The Appellant showed no understanding of the need for distance to be maintained between instructor and pupil, which is integral to the Code.[24]Whilst the Appellant has stated that he has ceased all social contact with clients in the light of the allegations made against him, he admits that he is a social and friendly person and the Tribunal considers that there is a material risk from all that it has heard, that this friendliness could manifest itself in ways which breach the Code in the future. Whilst, as the Appellant states, he is a popular and successful instructor, this does not mitigate for the inappropriate social contact he has maintained with his clients.[25]We have taken carefully into account of the loss of the Appellant’s livelihood which his removal from the register will give rise to, but the error of judgment made on 4 June 2025 seen in the context of a general pattern of contact with pupils which, in our view, breaches the Code when coupled with his inability to see anything inappropriate in such contact, has led us to conclude that he is not a fit and proper person to have his name entered on the register and that, in the interests of protecting the integrity of the register, it is proportionate to remove his name from it. It is important that all those whose name appears on the register, understand the and respect proper bounds of the professional relationship between instructor and pupil.[26]We consider that the Registrar has established that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person to be an ADI and that, in the light of that conclusion, suspension of the Appellant’s registration pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings would not be an appropriate course. He has shown himself to be unfit to have his name entered on the register. We conclude that the Decision was correct.[27]We dismiss the appeal. Signed:Tribunal Judge Simon BirdDate:11 August 2026