Mohamed Hisham v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 11 March 2026 at 14.00. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 16 August 2024 to remove the Appellant’s 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 very detailed representations received on 6 August 2024, he was no longer a fit and proper person to have his name remain on the Register due to him having been convicted of a motoring offence on 7 April 2024 (CU80 – use of a mobile phone) for which he was fined £200.00 and received 6 penalty points.

The Appellant submitted an appeal dated 16 September 2024, against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in terms, reiterating his said representations to the Respondent:

The Respondent in his Response dated 21 February 2025 confirmed that the Appellant’s name was first entered onto the Register in April 2018, and would have expired in the ordinary course on 30 April 2026; that the Appellant had accepted committing the motoring offence that led to him receiving 6 penalty points; that conditions for entry onto the Register extend beyond instructional ability, requiring account to be taken of the Appellant’s character, behaviour and standards of conduct, all of which must be above those of an ordinary motorist; that teaching (generally) young people to drive was a responsible and demanding task that should only be entrusted to those with high standards and a keen regard for road safety; that, in committing the said offence, the Appellant had not displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety expected of an ADI; that the government had recently increased penalties for motoring offences of this nature as they contributed to a significant number of casualties; that he could not condone motoring offences of this nature as, to do so, would effectively sanction such behaviour if those who transgressed were allowed to be re-entered onto the Register, an official document, that allows them to teach others and that it would be offensive to other ADIs or aspiring ADIs, who have been scrupulous in observing the law, to ignore this recent and relevant motoring offence.

The Respondent’s representative, in oral submissions, reiterated the contents of the Respondent’s decision notice and Response.

The Respondent’s representative, in response to queries from the Tribunal, advised that the Respondent only had the Appellant’s representations as to the facts, but still seemed unaware that it is illegal to hold a mobile phone while driving and, as a consequence, received 6 penalty points and a fine. He state further that the Appellant’s tole, as an ADI, include teaching pupils about motoring laws and rules that he should have known and respected.

The Tribunal noted that the Highway Code states a mobile phone must not be used. On the facts of this appeal, it could not be denied that the Appellant had lifted and held his mobile phone, while driving, in passing it to his son.

The Appellant had no questions for the Respondent’s representative.

In his oral evidence, the Appellant reiterated much of his written evidence set out in preceding paragraphs. He maintained that the incident was due to a misunderstanding of the law on his part and was an isolated incident, insisting that he had not used the phone. He stated he had taught 200 pupils and received ‘5 Star’ reviews and that his overall standard was far above that of an ordinary driver. He maintained the decision under appeal was procedurally unfair and that an overall view should be taken of his specific case. He maintained he had not been distracted driving while carrying out his said action in lifting and passing his phone to his son in the rear seat of his vehicle, that was done due to human error, and he should not be automatically have his name removed from the Register due to his receiving 6 penalty points. He maintained that previous appeals, in similar circumstances, had been allowed. The Appellant confirmed that he fully accepted the seriousness of breaching mobile phone laws while driving, but that he had a proven safety record and had improved his standards further. He submitted that the decision under appeal was disproportionate and represented a ‘blanket approach’ by the Respondent.

The DVLA database did not reveal the make-up of the penalty points imposed on the Appellant. In respect of the reference to the Appellant having received a warning for ‘common assault’ in the papers, the Respondent’s representative stated that such a matter would come to the attention of the Respondent if the Appellant had self-declared that matter or from the police or following an Enhanced Disclosure procedure, but that there was no issue of any ‘common assault’ matter being part of the decision under appeal, albeit there was an obligation on an ADI to disclose all offences. The Appellant confirmed that he now accepted it was an offence to hold a mobile phone while driving but this had been unclear to him previously.

In response to questions from the Respondent’s representative, that the penalty points had been given due to him not being in control of the vehicle, the Appellant disputed that this was what he had been told by the police officer.

The Tribunal pointed out that the written evidence in the papers was that the case made by the police was ‘use of a mobile phone while driving’.

The Respondent’s representative had nothing further to add by way of closing submissions.

The Appellant, in closing, stated he regarded safety as a high priority.

As a matter of law, the standing of the Respondent could be substantially diminished, and the public’s confidenceundermined, if it were known that a person whose name was included in the Register when they had demonstrated behaviours or been convicted in relation to an offence, substantially material to the question of fitness. This can be in respect of behaviourpertaining to motoring matters and other matters of responsibility, trustworthiness and prudence;indeed, it would be unfair to others who have been scrupulous in their behaviour, and in observingthe law, if such matters were ignored or overlooked.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Harris v. Registrar of Approved Driving
Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 confirmed that -

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

The Tribunal must bear in mind the significant 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, being removed from the Register, potentially may have significant consequences for the Appellant.

The Tribunal particularly considered the question of whether it was proportionate to dismiss this appeal. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal concluded that, in view of the gravity of the particular said motoring offences, it was dictated that removing the Appellant’s name from the Register was entirely proportionate in all the circumstances.

Taking all these factors into account and, noting that the Tribunal needs to maintain publictrust in the Register and to prioritise consumer protection over the interests of the Appellant as an individual driving instructor, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant, at the time of this appeal, was not a fit and proper person tohave his name remain on the Register.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.