Urson Codling v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 212 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 00212 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Hearing Heard on: 3 December 2025Date 13 February 2026
Transport
Appeal Reference: FT/D/2025/0691/FPP
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE KENNETH MULLANTRIBUNAL MEMBER RICHARD FRYTRIBUNAL MEMBER DR PHEBE MANNHeard by way of remote hearing using Cloud Video Platform
Between
URSON CODLINGAppellantREGISTRAR OF APPROVED DRIVING INSTRUCTORSRespondentDecision: The appeal is REFUSED

DECISION AND REASONS

[1]The proceedings were held using CVP. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing this way.[2]The hearing was conducted by a Judge and two Tribunal Members in Chambers.[3]In section 10 of his completed Notice of Appeal, the Appellant ticked a box to indicate that he wanted his appeal to be decided without a hearing. A remote oral hearing was arranged for 11.00 a.m. on 3 December 2025. At the scheduled time, the Appellant had not joined the hearing and the clerk to the Tribunal confirmed that there did not appear to have been any attempts to join. The clerk also informed the Tribunal the Appellant had not left any message to request an adjournment. The Tribunal allowed a further ten minutes from the scheduled time for the remote oral hearing to accommodate any delay on the part of the Appellant in gaining access to the hearing, if he had changed his mind in respect of the mode of hearing.[4]The Tribunal, in Chambers, then gave consideration as to whether an adjournment of the remote oral hearing was appropriate. We were satisfied that the Appellant had received notification of the date, time, and mode of hearing by the office of the General Regulatory Chamber (GRC) of the First-tier Tribunal in line with the relevant procedural rules. Having considered the overriding objective, and given the Appellant’s signified wishes in his Notice of Appeal, we were satisfied that it was appropriate to proceed in the Appellant’s absence[5]The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors was represented by Mr Russell after he had been invited to join the remote oral hearing.

General Background

[6]The appeal is against the decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (ADIs) that the Appellant could not satisfy the statutory requirement to be a “fit and proper person”, with the result that the licence which had been granted to the Appellant, enabling him to give instruction, paid for, by or in respect of the pupil, in driving motor cars and which was valid from 17 March 2025 to 16 September 2025 was revoked under s.130(1)(b) and 2(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 [“the Act”]. The burden of proving that an Appellant is not a fit and proper person is on the Registrar.[7]Conditions for entry or retention on the Register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant be a fit and proper person. As such, account has to be taken of an applicant’s 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.[8]Given that many pupils are just 17 years of age and the scheme as a whole relies upon the honesty, integrity and probity of ADIs, it is clear that substantial trust will be placed in ADIs by pupils, parents, other ADIs and road users, the public and the Agency. It is the Registrar’s function to ensure that the persons whose names appear in the Register are worthy of that trust and are fit and proper persons to have their names entered therein.[9]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 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.[10]Additionally, in cases involving non-motoring offences, the standing of the Register could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidence 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. Indeed, it would be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in their behaviour, and in observing the law, if such matters were ignored or overlooked.[11]In the Registrar’s Statement of Case, he points out that registration represents official approval; the title prescribed for use by instructors is ‘Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructor’, [“ADI”]. Approval is not limited to instructional ability alone, but also extends to a person’s character, behaviour and standard of conduct. In view of this, he expressed concern that the good name of the Register would be tarnished and the public’s confidence undermined if it was generally known that he had allowed the Appellant’s name to be re-entered on the Register when he had been convicted of an offence. He added that it would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in adhering to the appropriate standards to ignore this conduct. The Registrar’s approach was approved by the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (2010 EWCA Civ 808), in which Richards LJ said:- “….. 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. That is why there are stringent disclosure requirements.”[12]Applicants to become driving instructors are notified that the DVSA is entitled to ask for information about spent convictions and as a result they lose the protection provided by s.4(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This arises in consequence of paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 as amended which states that “none of the provisions of s.4(2) of the Act shall apply in relation to … any question asked … in order to assess the suitability … of the person to whom the question relates for any office or employment specified in Part II of the said Schedule 1 … where the person questioned is informed at the time the question is asked that, by virtue of this Order, spent convictions are to be disclosed”. Paragraph 14 of Part II of Schedule 1 states that “offices, employment and work” include “any work which is work in a regulated position” and by Part IV of Schedule 1 “regulated position” is “a position which is a regulated position for the purposes of Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000”. Paragraph 36(c) of Part II of the latter Act provides that “the regulated positions for the purposes of this Part are … a position whose normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children”; and by paragraph 42 of Part II “child” means a person under the age of 18. Since driving instructors may teach pupils aged 17 (or 16 if disabled) it follows that the DVSA is entitled to take spent convictions into account.

Factual background

[13]The background to this appeal is that the Appellant’s name, as at the date of the decision under appeal, was not then, and up until then, on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.[14]A licence under Section 129 of the Act was issued to the appellant for the purpose of enabling him to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars and was valid from the 17 March 2025 to the 16 September 2025[15]In his Statement of Case, the Registrar has stated:
‘On the 05 June 2025, I was contacted by Durham Police Professional Standards and Legal Services Department, enquiring how to make a disclosure relating to a dismissal from Durham Constabulary following a misconduct hearing. A further e-mail on the 06 June 2025 from Durham Police Professional Standards and Legal Services Department, stated, [the Appellant] was a police officer with Durham Constabulary until his resignation on the 25 February 2025. [The Appellant] was suspended from duty in July 2023 and was still subject to an ongoing misconduct investigation at the time of his resignation. This Investigationculminated in a Misconduct Hearing which took place between 2-10 April 2025. The panel found a number of the allegations proven against [the Appellant] including 3 that were found to be Gross Misconduct. The allegations related to inappropriate and sexualised behaviour with colleagues and one allegation relating to a sexual relationship [the Appellant] had with a member of the public that he had met whilst on duty. The outcome was that had [the Appellant] still been a serving police officer, he would have been dismissed without notice. The full Hearing outcome has been published on the Durham Constabulary website should you require further details. If this has not already been disclosed by [the Appellant], I believe the information will be relevant in relation to the criteria for a driving instructor to be a fit and proper in respect of any substantiated complaints of any inappropriate behaviour or misconduct.In the light of this information, I considered that the appellant was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence that allows him to teach others.’
[16]By way of email correspondence dated 6 June 2025, the Registrar gave the Appellant notice that he, the Registrar, was considering revoking the Appellant’s licence to give instruction. The Registrar invited the Appellant to make representations to the Registrar within 14 days which the Registrar submitted would be taken into consideration by him before reaching a decision.[17]In email correspondence dated 20 June 2025, the Appellant made representations. Those representations are set out in more detail below.[18]In the Statement of Case, the Registrar has stated that he carefully considered these representations and added:
‘… whilst the appellant denies the allegations made and offers an alternative perspective, the information provided of his hearing shows that the panel felt that the allegations had substance and had he still been a serving police officer he would have been dismissed. All the allegations relate to females and raise serious concerns as he will be in isolation with young females as part of his role as an instructor. In the circumstances I came to the view that the appellant's licence should be revoked.’
[19]The Appellant was notified of the Registrar's decision on 23 June 2025.[20]A notice of appeal against the decision of the Registrar dated was subsequently received in the office of the General Regulatory Chamber (GRC) of the First-tier Tribunal. The submissions of the parties The Registrar

The submissions of the parties

[21]At the remote oral hearing, Mr Russell appeared on behalf of the Registrar. He outlined the Registrar’s case, summarising the background to the Registrar’s decision to revoke the Appellant’s to give instruction. That background was set out in more detail in paragraphs 1 to 7 of the Statement of Case. Mr Russell also summarised the reasons for the Registrar’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. These were:(a) Whilst I accept that the appellant has not been convicted of any offence he has been the subject of a police misconduct hearing where had he still been a serving officer he would have been dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct because the conduct was in respect of a number of females. His behaviour affected the working environment of a number of colleagues. The conduct concerned instances of inappropriate sexualised and/or inappropriate conduct in respect of colleagues and a member of the public. Anyone who is aspiring to become an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) is expected to have standards of driving and behaviour above that of the ordinary motorist. Teaching (generally) young people to drive as a profession is a responsible and demanding task and should only be entrusted to those with high standards. I would therefore be failing in my public duty if I allowed a person who had been the subject of these internal allegations and found on the balance of probability to be guilty to continue to give instruction.(b) Registration or trainee status represents official approval; the title prescribed for use by instructors is "Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Approved Driving Instructor or DVSA licence holder. Approval is not limited to instructional ability alone, but also extends to a person's character, behaviour and standard of conduct. In view of this, I am concerned that the good name of the register would be tarnished and the Public's confidence undermined if it were generally known that I had allowed the appellant to continue to give paid instruction following the outcome of his misconduct hearing.(c) To allow the appellant to continue utilising a licence would be unfair to others who had been scrupulous in observing professional standards.’ The Appellant The written representations

The Appellant

[22]In the written representations forwarded to the office of the Registrar, the Appellant made the following submissions:• The first submission related to the Appellant’s concern about the validity of the misconduct proceedings. He stated: ◦ ‘I believe in being open and transparent so that people can make an informed decision. Police misconduct proceedings work on a balance of probability which means no evidence is required. It is mostly word on word and the panel, which is chaired and ran by the organisation, must decide who seems more believable. It used to be run by an independent panel; However, this all changed at the beginning of the year, and I was dealt with under the new proceedings.’• The Appellant set out details of his background and his career in the army and, subsequently, in the police. He was born and raised in the Caribbean from British and Jamaican parents. He came to the United Kingdom and joined the army in 2002. He served throughout the United Kingdom and had operational tours in Northern Ireland, Kosovo and several tours in Afghanistan. He rose to the rank of Sergeant and was, at the peak of his career responsible for up to 300 trained soldiers. He left the army early due to the birth of his child in 2017 and joined the police in 2018. He had some pre-conceptions of having difficulties in service in the police as the force he was joining had no black uniformed police officers and that position continued for several years. Due to his own endeavours and attitude, he became an invaluable member of the force and moved up through the ranks. His career was successful evidenced by performance statistics. He had operational training in several important areas of policing, including the detection of transport offences. He had received commendations from senior officers and received offers from other police departments based on his performance.• He started to become disillusioned and discontented in 2022 and started questioning things due to his frustration at how he was being treated. He had asked for opportunities to progress onto a supervisory role, but this was given to others with inferior qualifications and without explanation. He started articulating his discontent, distancing myself from his current shift and sought to transfer shifts.• The Appellant then set out details of each of the allegations and gave a comprehensive and detailed explanation and account of what had been alleged from his own perspective.• The Appellant stated the following, in conclusion:
‘All the information I have provided is the same I provided in the first day of the investigation. My written and verbal account has not changed in 3 years and I still stand by it. Throughout my time I have never propositioned a female officer due to advice I was given over 22 years ago when I first started in the military which was don't do things where you work. Keep personal and professional separate and I have done so. I chose to become a driving instructor as I loved the instructional role when I was serving in the military and take personal pride seeing how someone develops through my advice and guidance. I felt that same feeling when I had my first couple of pupil passes. I have almost 20 years of driving experience of various vehicles in several countries. I have also been an emergency driver and I believe I have a wealth of knowledge and experience to pass down to individuals to ensure they become good drivers. I am always open, approachable and friendly person naturally due to my cultural background. I try not to take things personal, and I do the same with my pupils whilst driving. I have several reviews by my pupils on my PnG profile which shows the type of instructor I am and will continue to be. However, should the decision be made to revoke my licence, I will completely understand and respect the decision made. If I were in your position that would be the direction, I would be leaning toward due to the hearing being recent.’

The grounds of appeal

[23]In section 9 of the Notice of Appeal, the section which asks about the outcome which the Appellant is seeking from his appeal, the Appellant stated the following:
‘I wish for the appeal to be allowed and be able to keep my licence.’
[24]In his completed Notice of Appeal, the Appellant set out the following grounds of appeal:
‘The registrar has taken the decision to remove my name from the register due to stating I am no longer classed as a fit and proper person due to an in house misconduct hearing dealt with to a civil standard meaning the balance or probability which means no concrete evidence is required. I still dispute the allegations made as there is an underlying element of racism which I have been trying to highlight to the organisation however these were either ignored or dismissed without a full investigation. I was round guilty at that hearing by way or a technicality based on the only actual evidence provided in the hearing which was provided by myself. I provided that information against the advice given to me by my Federation Representative as I firmly believed I had done nothing at all wrong. I had a relationship with someone on duty which I initially met whilst I was out and about in my shift. We met and struck up a normal conversation then exchanged details. No policing reasoning or purpose was involved. The comments in question that was deemed sexual in nature could be mostly said in any setting and a reasonable person would not find them or the circumstances to be classed as sexual, however as I have been going against the organisation, making my situation public and making too much noise, I had become a liability and my hearing could have only ended one way. There is an appeals process for my hearing which I elected not to proceed with as I could not appeal against the decision, only if the process was unjustified but due to it being civil. internal and not criminal I had very little recourse. I know the registrars thought process however nothing in my case involved children, vulnerable people and I was never challenged on my integrity. My service had been classed as exemplary and I was a very well known and popular officer, respected by nearly everyone within the organisation and to an extent became the face of the organisation to increase the number of black officers to their number.’

The Misconduct Proceedings

[25]In the bundle of proceedings which is before us is a copy of email correspondence dated 6 June 2025 from an officer in the Professional Standards and Legal Services Department of Durham Police to the Registrar, which states, inter alia: ‘I am writing in relation to Urson Lloyd Codling, who we understand is currently working for the … Driving School in the North East area. Mr Codling was a police officer with Durham Constabulary until his resignation on the 25th of February 2025. Mr Codling was suspended from duty in 2023 and was still subject to an ongoing Misconduct Investigation at the time of his resignation. This investigation culminated in a Misconduct Hearing which took place between 2-10 April 2025. The panel found a number of the allegations proven against Mr Codling including 3 that were found to be Gross Misconduct. The allegations related to inappropriate and sexualised behaviour with colleagues and one allegation relating to a sexual relationship Mr Codling had with a member of the public that he had met whilst on duty. The outcome was that had Mr Codling still been a serving police officer, he would have been dismissed without notice. The full Hearing outcome has been published on the Durham Constabulary website should you require further details.[26]A copy of the ‘Notice of Outcome’ and a ‘Report and Reasons’ relating to the Misconduct Proceedings Hearing is in the bundle of papers at pages 21 to 46. At the hearing, the Appellant was present, was represented and gave evidence.[27]The outcome of the Hearing was that the Panel found several of the allegations against the Appellant to be proven, including that three were found to amount to gross misconduct. The allegations related to inappropriate and sexualised behaviour with colleagues and one allegation relating to a sexual relationship the Appellant had with a member of the public whom he had met on duty. The following are certain of the Panel’s findings conclusions, made after taking into account submissions made in mitigation on his behalf:
‘The public expects officers to maintain the highest standards of behaviour. An officer must consider whether decision, action or omission may result in the public losing trust and confidence in the policing profession. The test as to whether the behaviour brings discredit on policing is not just about media coverage and public perception but the circumstances of the case. Based on the panel's findings regarding the inappropriate and sexualised language used, the former officer has breached the standard professional behaviour as he has discredited Durham Constabulary and undermined public confidence in policing. Actions described in each of these allegations is such that this is discreditable conduct not becoming of a police officer. The standards of behaviour expected of a police officer have been breached, and should the public be aware of these comments and behaviours then this will affect their overall trust and confidence in the police. In considering the seriousness of the proven conduct the panel has assessed the culpability, harm caused and identified any relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. The panel were satisfied that the conduct was allegations involving unwanted conduct of a sexual nature and was serious. The public should be able to have unquestioning faith in the behaviour of a police officer and would not expect a police officer to behave in this manner. The conduct was cumulative and repeated in respect of a number of female colleagues and/or a member of the public who was also female and involved a number of incidents committed over several years. We considered his culpability, in terms of his conduct. We find that his behaviour was delivered and intentional. Reputational harm was caused to the police and harm to public confidence and trust in the police would be caused if the circumstances were known more widely. In this regard public confidence in the reputation of the police is very likely to be undermined by the officer’s conduct. There was evidence of harm to junior colleagues and a member of the public. The conduct had the potential to create a degrading environment for colleagues. The conduct was seriously inappropriate and sexual. The aggravating factors relevant to the officer’s conduct were that his actions were that he concealed wrongdoing in interview. His behaviour or actions were repeated/sustained and that there were multiple allegations/breaches. The allegations involved multiple victims and multiple breaches of the standards and multiple allegations. There was a significant deviation from instructions. The panel considered the guidance issued regarding mitigation and considered that none of the factors were applicable to this case. The conduct of the officer was as a consequence of the decisions he made and he was solely and wholly responsible for those actions. He was blameworthy. The panel have assessed that the actions were deliberate and intentional. He was in a position of trust and authority as a senior constable on a shift dealing with probationary officers. Officer could have foreseen the risk of harm giving his training … Case involved sexual impropriety. The panel is satisfied that the harm in this case, due to the former officer’s conduct, would undermine confidence in policing and cause reputational harm. This causes damage to the police service and erodes trust. The panel are in no doubt that the former officer’s behaviour, if known would seriously harm public confidence in policing. We note some of the behaviour occurred in 2022 at a time when the environment was such that officers should have had heightened awareness of such behaviours given the high profile cases in the media at that time. The panel have regard to the non exhaustive list in the guidance and concluded that the following factors were present regarding the former officer's conduct. His conduct was repeated over a period of time. There were multiple officers involved including a member of the public. Ethical police behaviour, quite rightly, is of national and public concern. Significant deviation from instructions or national guidance. There were multiple breaches of the standards of professional behaviour’
[28]We emphasise that these are just examples from a range of parallel findings and conclusions.[29]The Panel’s conclusions on the appropriate sanction are set out in paragraph 1.403, as follows:
‘The panel concludes that the only outcome commensurate with the former Officer’s misconduct is that he would have been dismissed if still serving.’
[30]In paragraph 1.405 the Panel noted that the Appellant had a right of appeal against its decision, findings and conclusions to the Police Appeals Panel.[31]We note, at this stage, that the Misconduct Proceedings hearing took place between 2 and 11 of April 2025. The ‘Report and Reasons’ document reflects, in our view, the comprehensive investigation which took place. We are satisfied that the Panel undertook a rigorous and rational assessment of all of the evidence before it. The Panel gave a sufficient explanation of its assessment of the evidence, explaining why it took the particular view of the evidence which it did. Any conflict in the evidence before the Panel has been clearly resolved and explained.[32]The Panel made sufficient findings of fact, relevant to its decision, all of which are wholly sustainable on the evidence, and all of which are supported by relevant evidence. None of the Panel’s findings are irrational, perverse or immaterial.[33]All issues raised by the proceedings, either expressly or apparent from the evidence, were fully examined by the Panel in conformity with a inquisitorial role.[34]The proceedings of the Panel were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and its decision is reflective of an apposite consideration of, and adherence to such principles.[35]Read as a whole, the ‘Report and Reasons’ document provides a detailed explanation of the basis on which the Panel arrived at its conclusions on the issues before it. That explanation extends to the section of the document headed ‘Outcome’.

Analysis

[36]We have reminded ourselves of the benchmarks which are expected of PDIs and ADIs. To repeat what was stated at paragraphs 7 and 8 above:
‘7. Conditions for entry or retention on the Register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant be a fit and proper person. As such, account has to be taken of an applicant’s 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. 8. Given that many pupils are just 17 years of age and the scheme as a whole relies upon the honesty, integrity and probity of ADIs, it is clear that substantial trust will be placed in ADIs by pupils, parents, other ADIs and road users, the public and the Agency. It is the Registrar’s function to ensure that the persons whose names appear in the Register are worthy of that trust and are fit and proper persons to have their names entered therein.’
[37]The emphasis here is our own.[38]Further, the Registrar has highlighted his role and function in compiling and maintaining the Register and the unfairness to others who had been scrupulous in adhering to the appropriate standards and the potential undermining of the public’s confidence in the Register. We have significant concerns about the messages which conduct of this nature would send out to learners and novice drivers and the standards expected of them and others, such as the Appellant, seeking to aspire to become an ADI.[39]In an appeal against a decision by a Registrar, it is for the Tribunal to determine on the balance of probabilities whether a person is fit and proper, taking into account all the evidence before the Tribunal.[40]The Appellant was a serving police officer until his resignation on 25 February 2025. He was the subject of a misconduct investigation and had been suspended from duty in July 2023. The misconduct investigation culminated in a Misconduct Proceedings Hearing which took place in early April 2025. Before that, the Appellant had been issued with a licence which had enabled him to give instruction, paid for, by or in respect of the pupil, in driving motor cars and which was valid from 17 March 2025 to 16 September 2025. A criterion for the issue of such a licence was that an applicant for such a licence satisfies the statutory test to be a ‘fit and proper person.’[41]As noted above, the outcome of the Misconduct Proceedings Hearing was that the Panel found several of the allegations against the Appellant to be proven, including that three were found to amount to gross misconduct. The allegations related to inappropriate and sexualised behaviour with colleagues and one allegation relating to a sexual relationship the Appellant had with a member of the public whom he had met on duty. We set out above certain of the Panel’s findings reasons and conclusions, emphasising these were just examples from a range of parallel findings and conclusions.[42]The Panel’s conclusions on the appropriate sanction were that the only outcome commensurate with the Appellant’s misconduct is that he would have been dismissed if still serving.[43]Given all of that, the Registrar’s argument for the revocation of the Appellant’s licence is a powerful one.[44]We turn to the submissions made by the Appellant.[45]In both his written representations to the Registrar and in his grounds of appeal, the Appellant has challenged the misconduct investigation and the Misconduct Panel’s proceedings, in terms of independence, authority and process. He alleged that there were elements of racism about the reasons for bringing the allegations. He asserted that the hearing process was not valid, arguing that the hearing proceeded on the basis of the civil standard of proof meaning that no evidence was required.[46]We reject all of the claims and challenges which the Appellant has brought in connection with the conduct of the misconduct investigation and the Misconduct Panel’s proceedings. In relation to the latter, we have set out in paragraphs 31 to 32 our own assessment of the investigation and subsequent hearing.[47]In his written representations and his grounds of appeal, the Appellant has refuted all of the allegations which were made against him and set out his own assessment in some detail. It is axiomatic that we agree that the Appellant has every right to set out his own case. We observe, however, that the allegations were the subject of rigorous examination and analysis during the misconduct proceedings.[48]The Appellant was represented at the hearing of the Misconduct Panel and his own arguments, submissions and pleas in mitigation were heard and evaluated. We note that the Appellant was informed of his right of appeal against the Misconduct Panel’s decision, findings and conclusions to the Police Appeals Panel. There, he could have re-presented his arguments and submissions but failed to do so.[49]Further he was advised of his right of appeal to this Tribunal against the decision of the Registrar, to attend and be represented at the remote oral hearing in order to present his case before a new forum. Again, he has chosen not to do so.[50]We have taken into account the Appellant’s service in the armed forces and in the early part of his career.[51]The weight of the evidence in this case is firmly against the Appellant. We have no hesitation, therefore, in concluding that the appeal must be refused.[52]We are asked to determine whether the Appellant has failed the statutory test to be a fit and proper person, and accordingly, that the decision to refuse his application for a licence under Section 129 of the Act for the purpose of enabling him to gain practical experience to undergo the examination of his ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars should be upheld. We find, conclusively, that the Appellant has failed that test and that the Registrar’s decision is correct.

Disposal

[53]For the reasons which are set out above, the appeal is REFUSED. Kenneth Mullan Judge of the Upper Tribunal 9 February 2026