Mohammed Jahangir Kabir v The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

This appeal concerns a refusal by the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors to grant the Appellant a further trainee driving instructor licence under section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The appeal was heard orally. The Appellant appeared and gave evidence.

I am grateful to the Appellant for the way in which he presented his case. He was candid, measured and plainly sincere. He attended the hearing with his father present, who is bedridden, and explained the significant caring responsibilities he has undertaken.

I wish to make it clear at the outset that I do not doubt the truthfulness or genuineness of the Appellant’s account of his personal and family circumstances, nor the impact that those circumstances have had on his ability to undertake training during the relevant period.

Paid driving instruction is prohibited unless the instructor is either fully registered or holds a current trainee licence. A trainee licence is a limited, time-bound permission intended to allow temporary paid instruction while an applicant undertakes mandatory training and progresses towards qualification.

The trainee licensing regime is not intended to operate as an alternative to registration, nor to permit repeated extensions in circumstances where mandatory training requirements have not been met.

In deciding whether to grant or refuse a trainee licence, the Registrar is entitled — and required — to consider an applicant’s compliance with the conditions of any previous licence, the statutory purpose of the regime, and the public interest in maintaining proper standards of instruction.

During the currency of the most recent trainee licence, the Appellant completed substantially less training than the statutory minimum required. He completed only a fraction of the mandatory hours within the first three months of the licence and did not complete all the required training objectives.

Non-compliance with mandatory training requirements is a serious matter. Those requirements are central to the statutory scheme and go to both public protection and the integrity of the licensing system.

While the Appellant’s personal circumstances explain why compliance was difficult, they do not alter the fact that the requirements were not met.

The Appellant has previously been granted multiple trainee licences over an extended period. The purpose of those licences was to provide him with opportunities to gain experience, undertake training, and qualify as an approved driving instructor.

The Registrar was entitled to conclude that the Appellant has had ample opportunity to progress towards qualification but has not done so within the structure and expectations of the trainee licensing regime.

The scheme does not envisage repeated renewal of trainee licences where progress has not been made, even where there are understandable personal reasons.

I have given careful consideration to the Appellant’s role as the primary carer for his seriously ill father. These responsibilities are plainly demanding and deserving of sympathy.

However, the appeal is not general merits review unconstrained by statute. The Tribunal must apply the legislative framework enacted by Parliament. There is no discretion to grant a trainee licence simply because the reasons for non-compliance are genuine or compassionate.

The Registrar was entitled to conclude that, notwithstanding the Appellant’s circumstances, granting a further trainee licence would undermine the statutory purpose of the scheme.

I am satisfied that the refusal decision was proportionate and reasonable. It does not prevent the Appellant from continuing to pursue qualification. He remains free to undertake training with an approved instructor, to sit the instructional ability test, and to practise driving instruction without payment.

Many candidates qualify without ever holding a trainee licence. The refusal therefore does not amount to a permanent bar to the Appellant’s aspirations.

Taking all matters into account — including the Appellant’s sincerity, personal circumstances, previous opportunities, and the clear statutory requirements — I am satisfied that the Registrar correctly exercised discretion in refusing the application.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.