[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Rahman v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 438 (GRC) (24 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/438.html Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 438 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
Transport

		Heard by: Cloud Video Platform: Heard on: 14 April 2025
		Decision Given On: 24 April 2025

Decision: The appeal is Dismissed. The Registrar's decision of 12 September 2024 is upheld.

REASONS
1. This appeal concerns a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors ("the Registrar") made on 12 September 2024 to remove the Appellant's name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (the "Register") on the grounds that the Appellant had ceased to be a fit and proper person to be an Approved Driving Instructor ("ADI"). This is because he was charged with sexual assault, which related to an incident involving a female pupil.
2. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). The Appellant joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. The Registrar did not attend the hearing, and it was not possible to contact his representative by telephone. The Tribunal decided that, in all the circumstances, it was appropriate and in accordance with the overriding objective to proceed with the hearing in the Registrar's absence.
3. The Tribunal notes that the bundle of evidence contains a name of the victim of the alleged sexual assault that the Appellant has been charged with. Victims of certain sexual offences have the right to lifelong anonymity under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and should not be named in public court proceedings. The victim was not referred to during the hearing. The Registrar should not have included the victim's name in the bundle of evidence, and should have anonymised it even if contained in a document provided by the Appellant.
4. We make the following Order. Pursuant to Rule 14(1) no person shall disclose or publish any matter likely to lead members of the public (that is any person who is not a party to this case, and/or authorised to act for the Respondent and/or a representative of either party in these proceedings) to identify the victim of the alleged criminal offence that the Appellant has been charged with, including but not limited to any identifying references in the bundle of evidence for this hearing.

The Appeal

5. The Appellant's Notice of Appeal dated 19 September 2024 relies on the grounds that the allegations against him are false, and the Police and Crown Court had told him he could continue driving lessons except with female pupils.
6. The Registrar's Statement of Case dated 14 January 2025 resists the appeal. The Registrar says that while the Appellant had not been convicted of an offence, he has been charged with serious offences against a pupil. The Registrar assumes there is sufficient evidence against the Appellant and, due to the serious nature of the offence and bail conditions in place, he considers that the Appellant poses an immediate risk to the public.
7. The Appellant did not provide a Reply.

The law

8. 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 Road Traffic Act 1988 (the "Act").
9. The Registrar can remove a person's name from the Register if they have ceased to be a fit and proper person to have their name on the Register (section 125(2)(e) of the Act). The Registrar may take the view that a person no longer meets this requirement where there has been a change in circumstances. 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.
10. 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).
11. 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." (paragraph 30).

The evidence

12. We have considered a bundle of evidence containing 24 numbered pages. We heard submissions from the Appellant at the hearing.

The relevant facts

13. The Appellant's name was first entered on the Register in February 2023. On 14 August 2024 the Registrar was made aware of an email from Leicestershire Police which informed him that the Appellant has been charged with sexual assault. On the same date the Registrar emailed the Claimant to inform him the Registrar was considering removing his name from the Register on the grounds he had ceased to be a fit and proper person. The Appellant was invited to make representations within 28 days. Given the seriousness of the charges, the Registrar decided to suspend the Appellant's registration with immediate effect.
14. The Appellant sent an email on 28 August 2024 which said he had been interviewed by the police and charged with an offence with regard to allegations by a female pupil, which he denied. He had bail conditions to not contact the pupil or accompany any female in a vehicle for the purposes of driving tuition. He had pleaded not guilty and was awaiting a Crown Court trial.
15. The Registrar took these representations into account but decided that the Appellant's name should be removed from the Register.
16. The Appellant said at the hearing that the allegation against him is totally false. He maintains that he has not done anything wrong. He is expecting a final Crown Court trial in September or October this year, and believes he will be able to show that he is innocent. The police bail conditions that he cannot teach any female pupils remain in place. The current situation is very challenging for him as he has health problems and is unable to work as an ADI to earn money.

Conclusions

17. If an ADI's name is allowed to remain on 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. This includes behaviour relating to driving and other matters of responsibility, trustworthiness, inappropriate personal conduct or commission of criminal offences.
18. We have assessed the facts on the basis that it is imperative that the honesty, integrity and probity of ADIs is maintained, given the substantial level of trust that is placed on ADIs by pupils, parents and other ADIs as well as road users, the public and the DVSA. The public are entitled to know that the Registrar will ensure that often young and impressionable pupils are being instructed by those that behave properly. A charge for a serious criminal offence such as this is clearly relevant to the Registrar's assessment, in circumstances where an ADI is teaching pupils as young as 17 years old without another person present. The charge relates directly to a criminal offence against a pupil.
19. We do not know whether the Appellant did, in fact, commit this offence. We also do not know what the outcome of the criminal proceedings is likely to be. The Appellant says that he has done nothing wrong. However, it is not in dispute that the Appellant has been investigated and charged with this serious offence. We do not consider that it would be appropriate for the Appellant to continue working as an ADI until the matter has been resolved. His bail conditions would prevent him from teaching female pupils even if his name was put back on the Register. In any case, we do not consider that the Appellant should teach any pupils while charged with such a serious offence. If the Appellant is acquitted or the charges dropped, the Registrar would be able to put the Appellant's name back on the Register if he considers that it would be appropriate in the circumstances.
20. We find on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant does not currently meet the statutory requirement to be a fit and proper person. In all the circumstances, we conclude that the Registrar's decision to remove the Appellant's name from the Register as he was not a fit and proper person was correct. We dismiss this appeal.

Signed: Judge Hazel Oliver

Date: 18 April 2025