Jason Walton v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

Introduction to the Appeal

1. This appeal concerns a decision (“the Decision”) of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Registrar") made on 3 June 2025 in accordance with s125(8) of the Road Traffic Act (“the Act”) to refuse the Appellant’s application for re-registration in the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Register") as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”) on the grounds that the Appellant did not meet the condition in s125(3) of the Act, that is to say, that the Appellant could not be a fit and proper person to become an ADI.

2. The basis for the Decision was this: the Appellant’s conviction dated 12 July 2024 for driving without due care and attention on 23 December 2023 resulting in 6 penalty points.

3. On 28 June 2025, the Appellant appealed against the Decision.

4. The appeal was heard by video (CVP). The parties joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.

5. The Tribunal’s decision is unanimous. The Appeal

6. The Appellant's Notice of Appeal dated 28 June 2025 explains that: a. He has been an ADI for 13 years. b. On 23 December 2024, he was driving his mother on the motorway. She was suffering from medical conditions which mean that frequent stops for facilities were required. c. The Appellant left the motorway but overshot the access point for a car park for the facilities within the services by approximately 15 metres. He checked his mirrors, put his hazard lights on, ensured there were no other vehicles around, and reversed back to enter the car park. He parked in the disabled parking area as his mother was registered disabled. A police officer advised that he was going to issue the Appellant with a ticket and that his licence would likely be endorsed with 3 penalty points. d. By way of outcome, the Appellant seeks that he be reinstated as an ADI.

7. The Registrar's undated Statement of Case resists the appeal. In summary, the Registrar submits that: a. The Appellant’s name was first entered in the Register in April 2014 and removed on 1 May 2025 following the expiry of his certificate of registration. b. On 28 May 2025, the Appellant applied for his name to be re-entered on the Register. In so doing, he confirmed that he had not been convicted of a motoring offence and had no endorsements on his driving licence. A routine check on the DVLA databased provided the Registrar with an undeclared conviction: on 12 July 2024, the Appellant was convicted of driving without due care and attention resulting in his driving licence being endorsed with 6 penalty points. The Appellant had failed to declare the conviction to the Registrar within 7 days in breach of the declaration he made on his application to have his name retained in the Register submitted on 23 April 2021. In light of the undeclared conviction, the Registrar considered that the Appellant was not a fit and proper person to have his name entered in the Register. c. On 30 May 2025, the Registrar notified the Appellant that the Registrar was considering refusing his application for re-registration on the grounds that the Registrar could not be satisfied that the Appellant fulfilled the condition of being a “fit and proper person”. The Registrar invited representations. d. On 2 June 2025, the Appellant provided representations: he apologised and confirmed that it was the case that he had failed to declare the conviction; he had overlooked to do so as he had been occupied with his mother’s care since she was diagnosed with cancer in March 2025, and she had died on 17 May 2025. e. The Registrar was sympathetic to the Appellant’s personal circumstances but was unconvinced by the Appellant’s explanation of events; the tariff for the offence was 3-6 penalty points and if it had been a minor infringement, the lower tariff would have applied. The Registrar did not consider in the circumstances that the Appellant could fulfil the necessary condition of the Act. f. The Registrar’s reasons for the Decision are as follows: i. The Appellant’s driving licence is currently endorsed with 6 penalty points, having been convicted of driving without due care and attention. The Appellant had failed to notify the Registrar of the conviction with 7 days and made a false declaration on his application to have his name re-entered in the Register. ii. The conditions for entry onto the Register extend beyond instructional ability alone and require that the applicant is a fit and proper person. As such account is taken of a person's character, behaviour and standard of conduct. Anyone who is an 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 and a keen regard for road safety. The Registrar would therefore be failing in his public duty if he allowed a person who had committed this offence to have his named entered in the register. iii. As an officer of the Secretary of State charged with compiling and maintaining the Register on his behalf, the Registrar did not consider that he could condone motoring offences of this nature. To do so would effectively sanction such behaviour, if those who transgress were allowed entry in an official register that allows them to teach others. It would send out wrong messages to learner and novice drivers about the standards expected of them on the road. iv. It would be offensive to other ADIs and persons trying to qualify as ADIs, who had been scrupulous in observing the law, for the Registrar to ignore the Appellant’s conviction. The hearing

8. The Registrar submitted, in summary, as follows: he had decided to refuse the Appellant’s application for re-registration as an ADI on the ground that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person; when asked in that application whether he had been convicted of a motoring offence or whether his licence had been endorsed, the Appellant had confirmed in the negative; the Registrar’s check of the DVLA database revealed that the Appellant had been convicted of driving without due care and attention and his licence had been endorsed with 6 penalty points; while the Registrar had considered the Appellant’s representations and was empathetic to his circumstances, he could not ignore the facts that the Appellant had failed to notify the Registrar of his conviction within 7 days, had not declared the conviction on his application for re-registration, and that his licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points. The Registrar maintained that the Decision was correct.

9. The Appellant attended the hearing. His sister attended with him to speak on his behalf.

10. At the start of the hearing, the Tribunal explained that it was in receipt of a hearing bundle which contained only documents which the Appellant would have seen or himself created, for example the Notice of Appeal and the Registrar’s response. The Appellant’s sister did not recall that the Appellant had received such a bundle and asked for a ten-minute break in the hearing in which to check the position, to which the Tribunal agreed. The Registrar identified to the Appellant the time and date on which the hearing bundle had been emailed to the Appellant, and emailed it to him again during the hearing, the Appellant having confirmed that the Registrar had initially used the correct email address.

11. After the break, the Appellant’s sister confirmed that she and the Appellant had reviewed the bundle, and that the Appellant was happy to proceed.

12. By a combination of submissions from the Appellant and his sister, the Appellant explained that: the Appellant had not deliberately misled the Registrar; the first he knew of the conviction was when his application was refused; the Appellant is dedicated to his profession and is a law-abiding citizen; he was in state of distraction and grief at the time he submitted his application, and had no intent to mislead; living between two addresses at the time of the conviction, he had not been aware that any proceedings had been served upon him relation to the offence; he had paid the fine arising from the proceedings immediately; and he had not considered pursuing any appeal because he was otherwise committed to circumstances relating to the death of both his parents.

13. The Appellant explained that the offence did not occur on the motorway or the exit road from the motorway. Rather, he had been on the access road alongside the services and overshot the entry point to the car park. He had never been to those services before. He thought there was just one entry point to the car park. His mother was in a great deal of pain, and the situation was urgent. The time of day was about 1.00 p.m. The services were not busy. Having overshot the entry point, he realised that it was inevitable that he would have to rejoin the motorway, and, in the circumstances, that seemed intolerable. Accordingly, he stopped, put on his hazard lights, identified that there was no traffic behind him and reversed 15 metres to enter the car park.

14. The Appellant’s sister explained that: the Appellant does not know why he received 6 penalty points when he was expecting 3 points; it may be that it is because he did not contest the penalty or engage in the proceedings as he was unaware of them; revocation of the Appellant’s licence had placed him and his family in hardship; he has been an exemplary instructor for 13 years; he works for a driving school. He has financial obligations to meet. The law

15. Conditions for entry and retention on the Register require the applicant to be and continue to be a “fit” and “proper” person to have his name on the Register – see sections 125(3) and 127(3)(e) of the Act. The Registrar has the burden of showing that a person does not meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

16. The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit (section 131(3)). The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar's decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions (in accordance with R. (Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 31 ).

17. In Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2010] EWCA Civ 808 , the Court of Appeal described the "fit and proper person" condition as follows: ".. 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…It seems to me that 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. This is why there are stringent disclosure requirements. " (paragraph 30). The evidence

18. We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 28 pages. The relevant facts

19. We find the following facts.

20. The Appellant was convicted for driving without due care and attention on 23 December 2024. His licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points. He failed to notify the Registrar of that conviction at all, and when he applied for re-registration, denied that he had any conviction or penalty points.

21. The circumstances in which the Appellant came to commit the offence are those which he described to us at the hearing, and which we have set out above. Conclusions

22. If an ADI's name is allowed to be entered in the Register when they have demonstrated behaviours which are relevant to fitness, this will diminish the standing of the Register and undermine the public's confidence in the Register.

23. ADIs are held to a higher standard than ordinary motorists. The public has the right to expect that those who are registered as ADIs adhere to the highest standards of behaviour, which they themselves should be teaching to their pupils. 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.

24. The Registrar has the duty of ensuring that only those of appropriate standing are on the Register.

25. We bear in mind that the driving standards required of an ADI are higher than those of an ordinary motorist, and that on 23 December 2023, the Appellant’s standards fell short in that regard. He himself accepts that. We accept, however, that the circumstances in which the Appellant found himself were extremely difficult in the moment. We note that the Appellant was not driving on a busy road, there was no traffic behind him, and that he took such precautionary steps as he could, which mitigate the position in his favour.

26. We accept that when the Appellant applied for re-registration, that was very shortly after the death of his mother, for whom he personally, together with his family, had been caring. As we understand his submission, he did not, at that time, in any event know that he had been convicted of a motoring offence. We are prepared to accept that he did not, therefore, set out to mislead the Registrar by his application.

27. We note that the Appellant appears to have failed to notify the DVLA or the Registrar of his change of address, but we accept that he was operating between two addresses at the material time, eventually moving to one address to help care for his mother.

28. We bear in mind the Appellant’s submission that he has been unable to work and, consequently, he and his family are struggling financially.

29. Viewing matters in the round, we find that the Registrar has failed to establish that the Appellant is not a fit and proper person. We conclude that the Decision was incorrect.

30. We allow the appeal.