GLYNN CROSSAppellantTHE REGISTRAR OF APPROVEDRespondentDRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondentDecision: The appeal is dismissed with immediate effect.REASONS
Background to Appeal
[1]This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 5th February 2026 to revoke the Appellant’s licence, as he was no longer fit and proper to hold one.[2]The Registrar’s reasons for revocation, in summary, were that the Appellant had accrued 6 points for using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a car on 22nd December 2025. The Registrar took the view the offending was serious and allowing his name to remain on the Register would undermine confidence in it, so determined the Appellant must be removed.[3]The Appellant now appeals the Registrar’s decision.
Appeal to the Tribunal
[4]Appeal to the Tribunal The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, dated 9th February 2026, indicates he accepts full responsibility for the mobile phone offence he committed, but argues that it was disproportionate to revoke his licence. He argues this was a single isolated incident and he has no prior issues that bring his good character into question. He submits that revocation would have a serious impact on his livelihood and family.[5]Character references were provided indicating the Appellant is well thought of generally.[6]He submits that a warning or conditions being attached to his licence would be more appropriate.[7]The Respondent submitted a Response indicating that the offence was serious. Being responsible for teaching often young people came with particular responsibilities and abiding by the rules of the road was central to them. Here using a mobile phone could not be overlooked, and revocation was appropriate. The Registrar must send out a clear message that such offending will not be tolerated.[8]The Respondent provided a chronology that indicates that the Appellant was training to an ADI from 3rd June 2025 to the date his licence expired on 15th June. The offence itself was committed whilst teaching a pupil and it was of a nature that attracted police attention. The Appellant indicated to the Registrar that he was going to use the Satellite Navigation function on his device but had only taken it out of his pocket selected an app and then put the phone in its cradle. He advanced this was a lapse of judgement.
Mode of Determination
[9]Mode of Determination The case was listed for oral hearing, and heard via the CVP system.[10]The Appellant attended and was unrepresented.[11]The Respondent was represented by Ahtiq Raja of the DVSA Appeals team.[12]The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 42 pages.
Evidence
[13]Evidence Mr Raja said the Respondent’s position was as per the Response.[14]He indicated straight away that he wasn’t seeking to minimise the offence, he accepted it was a dangerous event. The Appellant explained that he was not in the right place mentally at the time due to the loss of a family pet, and in hindsight should have cancelled lessons that day.[15]He said he was taking a pupil on a rural lesson and in a moment got lost, so he used his phone to fix a route for the lesson. A police officer saw him undertaking the use of the phone and pulled him over. The officer then explained that the Appellant had committed an offence and was to be reported.[16]He said he didn’t realise that at the time it was against the law to use his phone whilst teaching, but wouldn’t have done so anyway as it was unprofessional. He said he later queried with others who also were unaware that it was an offence, albeit when he considered the explanation that he was in partial control of the vehicle and it had made sense.[17]He said as a result of this he changed to a TOM TOM sat nav system to prevent any need for a phone to be used. He had implemented various systems to ensure phones would never be used again.[18]He indicated that he was no longer teaching as his second trainee licence expired on 16th June 2026. He said he was now delivering as an occupation.[19]He said that he was pursuing his appeal on the hope that it would mean he could restart his training to become a full ADI. Mr Raja explained that without the Tribunal finding him to be fit and proper still that he would probably have to wait for 4 years from the offence to reapply.
The Law
[20]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 his name on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors – see s. 125 (3) and s. 127 (3) (e) Road Traffic Act 1988 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/V/crossheading/registration .[21]The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. The burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory criteria rests with the Registrar.[22]In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 http:/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/808.html , the Court of Appeal described the “fit and proper person” condition thus: “..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…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”.[23]An appeal to this Tribunal against the Registrar’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way of re-hearing i.e. the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and take a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must give such weight as is considered appropriate to the Registrar’s reasons See R (Hope and Glory Public House Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/31.html. Approved by the Supreme Court in Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2016] UKSC 60 at paragraph 45 – see https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0126-judgment.pdf. as the Registrar is the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a procedural review of the Registrar’s decision-making process.
Conclusion
[24]Conclusion The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it.[25]Here the Appellant picked up his mobile phone and used an app intending to set a travel route. It was a clear breach of the law and the Appellant accepts that. An instructor must know that such behaviour cannot be tolerated. In this case it is worse than simply using a phone, it is using a phone in front of a pupil in the middle of a lesson, when he was not watching the road as his pupil was driving. This sends a message to that pupil that is wholly wrong.[26]Allowing an instructor who has such an offence on their antecedents to be on the Register would send out the wrong message. An instructor must be able to say to pupils you must not do this, without fear that the pupil could say, “well you did.” The hypocrisy of such a stance undermines the whole Register. In balancing proportionality the severity of the offence is of some importance.[27]The Tribunal was more than a little concerned that the Appellant said he did not know that it was illegal for him to use his phone whilst teaching.[28]In every fit and proper case the Tribunal has to balance the wrongdoing against the effect of the consequences upon the Appellant. In some cases the wrongdoing, even as a one off, is so serious that revocation is entirely appropriate. The Tribunal notes that Parliament has over time increased the penalties for driving a motor vehicle and using a mobile phone, reflecting that such activity is viewed as being particularly dangerous. The Tribunal takes the view using a phone is particularly serious, especially whilst teaching. The short lived notice of the event is noted.[29]Having come to the view that the wrongdoing is serious and revocation was a possible sanction the Tribunal then reflects upon the effect of such a penalty on the Appellant. Here the Appellant is no longer a trainee ADI so the loss of licensing opportunity only affects whether he can restart imminently or in a few years’ time. He has work at the moment.[30]The Tribunal gives careful attention to the seriousness of the offending and the consequences here but comes to the view that the Registrar had no option but to remove the Appellant. The Registrar must ensure that the public has faith in the Register and the only way to do so is to ensure that only those suitable to instruct are on it. The Appellant is not. To allow the Appellant to appear on the Register would be to condone this particular offending.[31]Looking at the circumstances here the Tribunal comes to the view that the Appellant is no longer fit and proper.[32]The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect. HHJ David Dixon Gary Roantree Richard Fry Date: 13th August 2026