ZAKYA BI SADEEQAppellantTHE 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 19th March 2026 to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register, as she was no longer fit and proper to be on the same.[2]The Registrar’s reasons for refusal, in summary, were that the Appellant had accrued 6 points for using a mobile phone whilst driving a car on 30th November 2025. The Registrar took the view the offending was serious and allowing her 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 6th April 2025, indicates whilst the offence is accepted, removal was disproportionate. She argues she has a clean record before this event and has learnt from it. It would be wrong to remove her she argues.[5]She indicates that whilst travelling on a red route she made the serious error of trying to enter details into the sat nav system on her phone, as there were connection issues with the car she was in. She fully accepts her responsibility for this error. She offers her sincere apologies.[6]Character references supplied talk of the Appellant in high regard.[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 removal was appropriate. The Registrar must send out a clear message that such offending will not be tolerated.
Mode of Determination
[8]Mode of Determination The case was listed for oral hearing, and heard via the CVP system.[9]The Appellant attended and was unrepresented.[10]The Respondent was represented by Ahtiq Raja of the DVSA Appeals team.[11]The Tribunal considered a bundle consisting of 33 pages.
Evidence
[12]Evidence Mr Raja said the Respondent’s position was as per the Response.[13]The Appellant said that she took full responsibility for the offence. It was a courtesy car and it wasn’t connecting properly to her phone so she picked up the phone to enter a sat nav location. She accepted it was entirely the wrong thing to have done.[14]She said she has taken lessons to reflect on what she was doing and how things have to change. She had thought about things and was working to change her approach.[15]She described how she was ashamed and sorry, but had learnt from the offence.[16]She admitted that she had one traffic offence 10 years ago, save for that she had a clean licence. She said she was passionate about the career and dearly hoped to be able to continue. The occupation gave her the freedom of working but also being able to drop in to care for elderly relatives.[17]She explained that there was delay getting the Notice of Intended Prosecution to her as it was not her car. She didn’t report things to the Registrar straightaway as she believed that upon being told of an endorsement you had to report that and then report again upon the endorsement being entered against your licence. She said she was not aware of the 7 day requirements, but said she was not trying to hide things.[18]She was asked if she was found to be not fit and proper what impact there would be? She explained there would be a financial effect and it would affect her ability to care for her elderly parents. She said she would however be able to find work as she had other skills. She also indicated that she had stopped giving driving instruction lessons since April/May 2026, as she didn’t feel in the right frame of mind to instruct others.
The Law
[19]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 .[20]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.[21]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”.[22]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
[23]Conclusion The Tribunal considered carefully all the evidence and papers before it.[24]Here the Appellant used a mobile phone whilst in traffic. It was a clear breach of the law and the Appellant accepts that. An instructor must know that such behaviour cannot be tolerated. The Appellant accepted that it was one of those serious offences where removal was likely.[25]Allowing an instructor who has such an offence on their antecedents to remain on the Register sends 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.[26]The Registrar is in the invidious position of having to balance ensuring that all understand the very high standards that are expected of ADIs to behave in the most appropriate of ways when driving and generally, such that the general public appreciate that “approved” in the “approved driving instructor” means something, whilst at the same time being fair and just to individuals that contravene laws and/or rules/regulations. Here it seems to the Tribunal the Registrar was.[27]In every fit and proper case the Tribunal, after the Registrar’s balancing exercise, has to consider the wrongdoing against the consequences to the Appellant. In some cases the wrongdoing, even as a one off, is so serious that revocation is entirely appropriate. There are classes of actions that might be felt to fall within that category, such as assaults upon pupils, outright dishonesty, serious motoring offences etc. 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 that to mean that using a phone whilst in charge of a car is to be considered as being particularly serious. The short lived notice of this event is noted, but most mobile offences tend to be.[28]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 has already stopped instructing and is surviving without such work. She has indicated that whilst she can find work it may not be as convenient to her caring role. It seems to the Tribunal this is to be too uncertain a position for it to carry a deal of weight. Whilst it is noted, it doesn’t counter the severity of the offence.[29]The Tribunal gives careful attention to the seriousness of the offending and the consequences of revocation 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. An instructor that uses a mobile phone whilst driving is not. To allow the Appellant to appear on the Register would be to condone the offending.[30]Looking at the circumstances here the Tribunal comes to the view that the Appellant is no longer fit and proper.[31]The Appeal is dismissed with immediate effect. HHJ David Dixon Gary Roantree Richard Fry Date: 13th August 2026