Trevor Wookey v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 11 March 2026 at 15.00. The hearing was delayed until 15.16 as the previous appeal ran over time a little. The Appellant was present along with his wife, Nicola Wookey. He gave oral evidence and made oral submissions, together with oral submissions from his representative. Oral evidence and submissions were heard on behalf of the Respondent from his representative.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 13 August 2024 to remove his name from the Register (‘the Register’) of Approved Driving Instructors (‘ADIs’), pursuant to section 128(2)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) on the basis that, having taken account of the Appellant’s representations received by email on 4 August 2024, he was no longer a fit and proper person to have his name remain on the Register due to him having accepted that, on 10 May 2024, he had committed a motoring offence, namely, a breach of legislative requirements concerning control of a motor vehicle, mobile telephones and so on (CU80) for which he accepted a fixed penalty of an endorsement of 6 penalty points on his licence.

The Appellant submitted a detailed appeal dated 2 September 2024, against the Respondent’s said decision, reiterating, essentially, but in much greater detail, his representations against the stated intention of the Respondent to remove his name from the Register, including first class reviews of his tuition. The grounds of appeal, included, in terms:

The Appellant’s representative, at the start of the hearing, advised that the Appellant on the date of the offence had needed to change cars to one that had no mounting for his phone; that he had made a hands-free call on the phone, that was not properly secured, that had been observed by a police officer; that the Appellant had sought legal advice to challenge the proposed FPN but had been advised not to do so; that the Appellant had a 40 year unblemished driving record and provided specialist tuition to pupils with Special Educational Needs; that he, himself, was dyslexic and intended to shortly retire.

In his oral evidence, in response to questions of clarification from the Tribunal, the Appellant stated that his phone cover had a non-slip element. He stated that a police officer in plain clothes apparently noticed the phone on the dashboard but that he, the Appellant, had not touched the phone. He stated that he had been travelling in a long queue of slow-moving traffic and had been ‘pulled over’ by the police officer because, he was told, his phone was on the dashboard and that he was ‘using the phone while in control of the vehicle’. He stated he had finished his call, made hands-free, via the SIRI facility, but that his advice now to pupils was not to go near the phone while driving. He confirmed the phone was not in use when the police officer saw it on the dashboard. The Appellant did not know what evidence had been provided by either police officer but that he had not been accused of using the phone. The Appellant reminded the Tribunal that 20 minutes of a driving test was now done using a SatNav device, for which he used his mobile phone.

The Respondent’s representative summarised, in oral submissions, referring to the Respondent’s Response, the reasons why the Respondent had decided to remove the name of the Appellant from the Register, that is, that he was no longer a fit and proper person having received 6 penalty points concerning control of his vehicle; that account had been taken of the Appellant’s representations; that the Appellant

In his Response document, the Respondent confirmed that the Appellant’s name had first been entered onto the Register before 1990 and had been due to expire, in ordinary course, on 30 September 2024. The reasons for the decision under appeal were stated to be that the Appellant had received 6 penalty points pursuant to a FPN for the motoring offence of CU80. The Respondent maintained that the police simply

Neither the Appellant nor his representative had any questions for the Respondent’s representative.

The Respondent’s representative had no closing submissions to make.

The Appellant’s representative, in closing, stated that the Appellant had suffered from a lack of good advice; that he was a person of good character with a long-standing unblemished driving record and asked the Tribunal to have regard to the circumstances of the offence.

The Appellant stated he was decent, caring, dedicated and passionate.

All of the evidence, both written and oral of, or on behalf of both parties and their submissions were considered by the Tribunal, resulting in the Tribunal taking an exceptional course to allow this appeal, on balance of probabilities.

The Appellant had referred to other ADIs, in a similar position to him whose names had not been removed from the Register or whose appeals had been allowed. However, the Tribunal approached its Decision in this appeal, having regard to the question of proportionality, precedents of another First-tier Tribunal that may have gone in favour of some other Appellants(s) were not binding on this Tribunal and, in any event, there are very many other precedents that went the other way where the circumstances and facts were similar to those in this appeal.

While the Appellant did not challenge the FPN in the local Magistrates’ Court, the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, found the Appellant to be credible, forthright and honest; indeed, he may well have successfully challenged the subject offence contained in the FPN had he applied to the Magistrates’ Court. The Tribunal accepted the Appellant was neither holding or touching his phone but did use it, hands-free, via the SIRI facility. The Tribunal also was impressed by the Appellant’s extremely good, unblemished driving record and concluded that he was a good instructor, remaining a fit and proper person to have his name remain on the Register, having regard to the circumstances of the offence accepted by him. The Tribunal was troubled that the Respondent appeared to possibly remove the name of an ADI from the Register simply when an ADI received 6 penalty points without considering fully the individual facts and circumstances.

The Respondent could, and should, in all the circumstances, have accepted that were exceptional circumstances, and could, and should, have, in the alternative, issued a warning to the Appellant, rather than make a decision to remove his name from the Register.

The basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant did not fulfil the
criteria to be a ‘fit and proper person’, as required by the relevant provisions in the Act.

Conditions do require that an ADI (the Appellant in this case) to be a ‘fit and proper person’. This requires account to be taken of anAppellant’s character, behaviour and standards of conduct. This involves consideration of allmaterial matters, including convictions for offences including, as in this case, a motoring offence, and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters incontext, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate. The Respondent may take theview that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change incircumstances.

An appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s decision proceeds as an appeal by way ofre-hearing, that is, the Tribunal makes a fresh decision on the evidence before it. The Tribunal must givesuch weight as it considers appropriate to the Respondent’s reasons for its decision as the Respondent is the regulatory authority tasked by Parliament with making such decisions. The Tribunal does not conduct a proceduralreview of the Respondent’s decision-making process.

The Appellant, in essence, correctly submitted in both his written and oral evidence that all of the circumstances had to examined and that the penalty imposed on him in respect of a motoring offence did not, and should not, result in automatic removal of his name from the Register.

The Tribunal found that, while the Appellant did not challenge the alleged offence in the local Magistrates’ Court, the commission of the alleged offence was not, in fact, made out. The Tribunal also accepted that the Appellant was deeply remorseful and what occurred would not recur. It was accepted that the Appellant was an otherwise diligent, long-standing ADI. The Tribunal accepted that the Appellant understood the standards expected of an ADI.

While the Tribunal was conscious of, and was bound by, the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving
Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 that stated, inter alia -

In reaching its Decision, the Tribunal took into account all of the evidence and submissions received, both written and oral, and considered all of the circumstances relevant to this appeal.

The Tribunal also considered the wider context of the Appellant’s professional conduct.

The decision of the Tribunal in this appeal does not take away from the importance which attaches to the integrity ofthe Register. For the public to have trust init, the Respondent must act in a way that encourages belief that those on it have high standards. Allowing those who do not meet those standards would undermine the trust placed in it with serious consequences for those who do maintain the necessary high standards.These are matters of wider, and public interest, which attract significant weight even where, as in this case, removal of the Appellant’s name from the Register may have had significant consequences for the Appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal isallowed.