Aryan Jafari v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal was listed for oral hearing by CVP on 1 April 2026 by CVP at 12.00. The Appellant attended and gave oral evidence and submissions. He was accompanied by his wife, Ms. Maryan Qurbani, who had been named by the Appellant as one of three witnesses he wished to call. The other two witnesses were another Approved Driving Instructor (‘ADI’), Marshall Ashpar and a former pupil of the Appellant, Connor Joyce. The hearing did not get underway until 12.25, but Mr. Ashpar was unable to connect by video, despite several attempts and left the hearing. Mr. Joyce also had some difficulties, but these were resolved and he did attend and give oral evidence, albeit not being present for parts of the hearing, and being advised that he had to go to a quiet, private location. The Appellant’s wife spoke very little English, either spoken or understanding. The Appellant advised that he had requested an interpreter, but none had been arranged. The Appellant offered to act as her interpreter was advised that this may not be done in a judicial hearing. In any event, however, it emerged that the only evidence the Appellant’s wife was to have given was that the Appellant was a ‘good driver’. In other words, the Appellant’s wife’s evidence was confined, essentially, in any event, to character evidence on behalf of the Appellant. Oral evidence and submissions were received from the Respondent’s representative.

The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Respondent dated 8 August 2025 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 representations made by the Appellant on 3 August 2025, he had ceased to be a fit and proper person (‘FPP’) to have his name remain on the Register due to his driving licence being endorsed with 6 penalty points due to him having committed a motoring offence (CU80) on 6 June 2025 while providing a driving lesson.

The Appellant submitted a very detailed Notice of Appeal on 26 August 2025, against the Respondent’s said decision on the following grounds, in terms:

The Appellant made representations to the Respondent dated 3 August 2025 wherein he admitted using his mobile phone as a SatNav device while giving instruction to a pupil. He stated what he later repeated in detail in his Notice of Appeal concerning the circumstances of the incident.

In his oral evidence, the Appellant reiterated what he had stated in his detailed Notice of Appeal.

In response to clarifications sought by the Tribunal, the Appellant confirmed he was instructing a pupil at the time of the offence (a statement to the contrary being incorrect); that he paid the fine and that this was his first offence. He explained that the call he made at 11.26, as shown in his phone records, shortly after he had been pulled over, was made by him to his wife to tell her what had happened and while he was still stationary.

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

Mr. Connor Steer, a witness for the Appellant advised that he had taken lessons with the Appellant from January to August 2025, that he was ‘an amazing instructor’ and had never been on the phone during his lessons. He was surprised to hear of the commission of the offence.

In response to questions from the Tribunal, Mr. Joyce stated that the Appellant’s phone was in his pocket during his lessons; that he was indebted to the Appellant and would support him and that his phone was always out of sight.

The Respondent, in his Response document, confirmed that the Appellant’s name was first entered onto the Register in February 2025 and would expire, in ordinary course, on 28 February 2029. In the reasons for his decision, the Respondent stated that he could not ignore the fact that the Appellant’s licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points, he having accepted the penalty for a serious motoring offence (CU80); that as an experienced ADI, he should have properly secured the phone or put it away completely while teaching; that this motoring offence had been committed in front of a pupil, setting a very wrong example to a learner driver and undermining the integrity of the Respondent; that conditions to remain on the Register requires an ADI (the Appellant in this case) to be a ‘fit and proper person’. This requires account to be taken of his character, behaviour and standards of conduct, and not simply instructional ability alone. This involves consideration of allmaterial matters, including convictions, and other relevant behaviour, placing all matters incontext, and balancing positive and negative features as appropriate, matters that require an ADI to have higher standards than the standards expected 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 sense for road safety but, in committing the offence, the Appellant had not displayed the level of responsibility or commitment to improving road safety expected of an ADI; that government had increased penalties for serious road safety offences such as these 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 transgressors were allowed to remain on an official Register that allows them to teach others and that it would be offensive to other ADIs or aspiring ADIs, who had 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 Decision letter and the Respondent’s Response document. He confirmed that the Appellant had not challenged the offence in court and had accepted committing the offence; that the offence occurred during a driving lesson.

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

The Respondent’s representative confirmed that he had no further submissions to make to the Tribunal.

The Appellant, in closing, asked that he Tribunal take account of the circumstances, that the phone was blocking the dual control pedals; the health of himself and his wife and his caring responsibilities and that financial hardship would result if his name was removed from the Register.

The basis of the Respondent’s decision was that the Appellant had ceased to be a ‘fit and proper person’, as required by s.125(2)(e) of the Act by reason of his conviction for the said motoring offence on 15 September 2023, in respect of which his driving licence was endorsed by a total of 6 penalty points.

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.

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, indeed, 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 was particularly conscious of the Appellant’s career as an ADI and the impressive testimonials submitted by him, together with the health problems of himself and his wife and his caring responsibilities (to which, however, little or no weight could be attached in deciding this appeal). Moreover, the Tribunal considered there were inconsistencies in the Appellant’s account, not least in respect of whether he was instructing or not (the former being the actual position) and he stated his phone was ‘out of sight’, contrary to his alternative claim that it ‘was in the cradle’. However, the Tribunal was very concerned at the message this incident sent to the Appellant’s pupil, noting that the Appellant accepted having committed this serious motoring offence. The Tribunal considered other steps could, and should, have been taken by the Appellant to ensure the dual control pedals were not blocked until he found a safe, legal space to pull over and then retrieve the phone.

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 public interest, which attract significant weight even where, as in this case, the Appellant’s name 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 the gravity of the particular said motoring offence dictated that removal of the Appellant’s name from the Register was entirely proportionate in all the circumstances.

While all of the evidence, and submissions, both written and oral from, and on behalf of, the parties, was considered by the Tribunal, it did not alter the Respondent’s decision as the written and oral evidence and submissions before the Tribunal were not of sufficient persuasive value to do otherwise.

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 entered onto the Register.

Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed.